Some advice for Schumer

[Tigermike 3,053]

Some advice for Schumer on judicial nominees

Raymond J. Keating

September 5, 2005

Is the U.S. Senate getting ready to be the "world's greatest deliberative body" or a political circus?

With one set of confirmation hearings getting ready to start, people certainly will watch the performance of Judge John G. Roberts, President George W. Bush's choice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court. And now more hearings are to come following the death of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.

Viewers, and voters, also should keep an eye on how their own senators behave.

New York's Charles Schumer, a Democrat, will be at the center of the fray, as he has been in previous battles over judicial nominees from Bush.

Schumer's problem is he seems to forget he is not president and does not get to pick who sits on the federal bench. He also twists the Senate's "advice and consent" role on court selections, promising to further undermine confidence in the process and the courts.

New York's senior senator portrays himself as moderation's great defender. In a 2003 letter Schumer arrogantly advised Bush on how to pick a Supreme Court justice: "I start by encouraging you to use the same principles that guide me in evaluating judicial nominees. I consider three criteria: excellence, diversity and moderation."

Speaking in California last week, according to The Associated Press, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made an excellent point: "Now the Senate is looking for moderate judges, mainstream judges. What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say?"

Many Democrats get overheated about judicial appointments - particularly for the Supreme Court - because they prefer activist judges who care little about what the law and Constitution actually say, and more about advancing a political agenda. Schumer summed up the activist view: "The Supreme Court makes law."

That's a gross misunderstanding, or misrepresentation, of our system of government. The Supreme Court is not supposed to make law, but to apply the law and the Constitution. Meanwhile, the Senate's traditional "advice and consent" role for court appointments has been limited to considering honesty, integrity, background, competence and temperament.

As Newsday reported in July, Schumer said Roberts "told me flatly that he is not an ideologue and said that he shares my aversion to ideologues." In reality, Schumer ranks as an ideologue in the worst sense, as he embraces the ends justifying the means through activism replacing constitutional representative democracy with judicial fiat.

It's also clear that Schumer evaluates judicial nominees based on a set of ideological issues. That's reflected in the long list of questions Schumer handed Roberts, seeking the judge's views on topics like campaign finance, abortion, the death penalty and environmental policy. If such questions become the norm, then nomination hearings will continue to degrade into vicious political games.

By the way, the U.S. Senate approved the very liberal former ACLU general counsel Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 to the Supreme Court by a whopping 96-3 margin. If her judicial philosophy and political views had been in play, most Republicans probably would have voted against her.

Also, during a 2001 judiciary subcommittee hearing held by Schumer, former White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray highlighted Sen. Ted Kennedy's 1981 defense of O'Connor's refusal to answer questions about her abortion position. Kennedy declared: "It is offensive to suggest that a potential justice of the Supreme Court must pass some presumed test of judicial philosophy."

Schumer more activist than Kennedy - that's scary.

Schumer also has declared: "There's no question that Judge Roberts has outstanding legal credentials and an appropriate legal temperament and demeanor." True moderation dictates that should be sufficient for Schumer to support Roberts for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Raymond J. Keating serves as chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. He can be reached at rjknewsday@aol.com

link

[Piglet 0]

Yeah, yeah. "Advice" from conservative Republicans to Democrats: go to sleep and give us a blank check to keep running the country into the ground. Of course.

This is about as welcome as "advice" from Teddy about what King George really ought to be doing.

[TrueBlue72 0]

The Republicans don't really NEED the democraps advice and consent; they need the Senate's!. There is a Republican majority in the Senate, just as there is in the house. That is what elections are for and recent elections have put the Republicans squarely in control. Senators like Shumer will simply force the Republicans to do what they should have done a few months ago and get rid of the Senate rules that allow filibusters to run rampant.