Severation of Powers
Dems’ presumptive jubilee day of 1-20-09 is still, let’s see, 17 months and 24 days away, but they’re all done with the Constitution, mandate of the people, etc. The one that elected George Bush president in 2004. Again.
Schumer, no more Supreme Court judges for Bush:
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”
Dangerously out of balance. There’s an interesting idea. That exactly describes what is happening with the United States Congress. The senator from New York may be on to something. It may be time to reverse the presumption of liberty for elected leaders who in time of war and grave threat to national and global security have sought to undermine this administration’s ability to prosecute the war, intercept enemy communications and hold illegal enemy combatants. Particularly seeing as they are so easily “duped.” Clearly not suited to leadership.
Given the difficulty Congress has had accomplishing its goals, this is probably not really much cause for concern. In fact, as White House spokeswoman Dana Perino notes, it’s probably about bluster and money:
“This is the kind of blind obstruction that people have come to expect from Sen. Schumer,” Perino said. “He has an alarming habit of attacking people whose character and position make them unwilling or unable to respond. That is the sign of a bully. If the past is any indication, I would bet that we would see a Democratic senatorial fundraising appeal in the next few days.”
Meanwhile, Justice Stephen Breyer, finding himself on the wrong side of judicial history, is whining about it:
Breyer has publicly raised concerns that conservative justices were violating stare decisis, the legal doctrine that, for the sake of stability, courts should generally leave precedents undisturbed.
“It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much,” Breyer said, reading his dissent from the bench in June to a 5-4 ruling that overturned school desegregation policies in two cities.
At least not when Breyer et al disagreed with them. That stare decisis sounds like a heck of a Pandora’s box. As usual, concern about precedents, “balance,” etc. depends on whose ox is being gored.
Powerline: If this isn’t a coup, what is? Schumer would rather see Bush’s dangerously out-of-balance 5-4 court dangerously out of balance in the other direction.
Instapundit: Red meat for Republicans. Reynolds graciously volunteers to fill a recess slot on the bench. “I promise to make things interesting … ”
Riehl: Schmuck was duped?
Malkin: That’s right, he’s a dupe. She quotes America’s leading Democratic ex-KKK member re Schumer: “I think we can all agree there’s room for improvement … “ See? We can all just get along.
Shakespeare’s Sister acknowledges she’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I’m pretty sure that collection of spuds, tarts, etc. isn’t Shakespeare’s sister, either.
Topics: pols
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 7:52 am on Saturday, July 28, 2007
19 Responses to “Severation of Powers”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:49 am
[...] Crittenden calls this a “Severation of powers.” John Hinderaker asks: “Is this a coup? If not, what is [...]
July 28th, 2007 at 10:42 am
This is another variation of the “Let’s reinstate the Fairness Doctrine!” garbage from the Dhimmicrats. I expect that their basic problem is that they are so incompetent* that Schumer and his ilk have to lower the playing field while trying to level it.
===================
*: Yes, incompetent. The Dhimmicrats have “controlled” Congress since January 2007, and have accomplished effectively ZERO. Indeed, they’ve managed to dig their hole even deeper in the process of accomplishing nothing, a mind boggling situation for a body comprised of such people.
July 28th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
“He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court,…”
Oops.
Looks like the religious right takes another hit for the war profiteers.
July 28th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Huh?
July 28th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
THE ALPHTARD™ is selectively quoting from the Constitution, PA. In this case, Article II, Section II, “Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments”.
As with His history, THE ALPHTARD™ ignores other parts of the Constituion, quoting out of context, in what’s called the “living document format” so beloved by lefties.
For example, THE ALPHTARD™ ignores:
Article I, Section I: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
Not to mention Article 1, Section 8, which specifies the authorities of Congress, which clearly excludes “Executive Power”.
For that, one must go to Article II, Section 1: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Which rather precludes Congress from exercising Executive powers, in spite of efforts by the Dhimmicrats.
This basic lesson on the Constiution of the United States of America brought to you in spite of ALPHTARDS UNLIMITED™, your best source for stupidity, idiocy, and non-sequiturs in the known universe. All rights preserved by the efforts and sacrifices of the US military, and the citizens with the intelligence and moral fortitude to support them.
July 28th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
PS: if THE ALPHTARD™ so wishes, He may review the Constitution here. If He doesn’t so wish, others might want to.
Enjoy; it’s a great read!
July 28th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Real_jeffy,
I’m having trouble following this rant (go figure).
Are you trying to say that Bush can somehow avoid the Senate if another Supreme Court opening occurs in his last few months in office?
A recess appointment, maybe?
July 28th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Don’t worry, al-Phie, southpaw scribblers are on the job already, busy laying the groundwork for a new court-packing scheme to reverse the judicial effects of port-side inability to win electoral votes.
July 28th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
southpaw-port-side, Jeffy1?
Seems to me the split is between the religious right and the greedy right in this case.
We all know who always wins that “moral” struggle these days.
July 28th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
The President has the right to nominate Supreme Court Justices whether Chuckie likes it or not. And they have an obligation to advice and consent, not obstruct.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
THE ALPHTARD™ is selectively quoting from the Constitution, PA.
Oh, I had the constitution part just fine, I’ve read those sections in the past. It was the last sentence that threw me.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
WTF?
You make more sense when you’re just panting to fluff a Taliban platoon, suck-monkey. Sober up
July 28th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
The lefties and liberals are upset that precedents are being overruled? Well boo hoo. The USSC is not bound by stare decisis if previous decisions were decided wrongly. There are many decisions that were decided wrongly, generally because the majority used poor legal reasoning in deciding them or disregarded what the law actually said. In recent decades this has been characteristic of decisions the liberals like, and they seem to think that SC nominees must promise to obey such badly decided precedents in order to win confirmation. In this they are mistaken.
If you want an example of a recent decision wrongly decided I give you Kelo, which contradicted the clear meaning of the Bill of Rights. Decisions upholding racial preferences contradict the clear meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with no Constitutional justification whatsoever for contradicting the statute. And Roe vs Wade is a classically shoddy job of legal reasoning, as many legal scholars who approved of its results admitted. The lame argument has been raised in favor of keeping Roe that it is a “superprecedent” of such great antiquity that it must be kept, shoddy reasoning and all. Well Plessey vs Fergusson was an even longer “superprecedent”, and I don’t think anyone would argue that it should have been kept instead of being reversed by Brown.
So Breyer’s argument is all wet. Schumer is not just wet but mired in sewerage. He thinks disagreement with his own twisted opinions is sufficient cause to reject a judicial nominee, even prevent him from being considered by the Senate. He also thinks that political disagreement with the Executive Branch, based on nothing more than partisan hatred by liberals, should allow him to deny nominees a hearing. This was not the case in the past, as when Republicans had a majority during the Clinton Administration, but liberals and lefties have to spoil everything they touch,such is their poisonous thirst for absolute, unchecked, and unconstitutional power.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Asking certain people to read the Constitution of the United States is asking for more brain power and English comprehension than certain people have thus far demonstrated they possess. Start them off with, say, the Koran instead. Less of that icky critical thinking required.
July 28th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
“Breyer has publicly raised concerns that conservative justices were violating stare decisis…”
Good.
There are a host of SCOTUS decisions that need to be overturned.
July 28th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington….”
Fair enough. If the Dems want to play hardball on judicial appointments, then President Bush should veto ALL appropriations bills that don’t relate to national defense or to other constitutionally mandated government functions.
Let the bureaucrats and the welfare leeches starve.
That would be a good thing in any case.
July 29th, 2007 at 5:10 am
Oh what, you’re still here, Alphie?
Still moanin’, what’s it all about, Alphie?
‘Cuz you don’t understand what you read, Alphie?
Let’s chuck you over port side, Alphie,
“Cuz your brains’re always in recess, Alphie!
July 29th, 2007 at 10:35 am
“Jeffersonian said:
‘Seems to me the split is between the religious right and the greedy right in this case.’
WTF?
You make more sense when you’re just panting to fluff a Taliban platoon, suck-monkey. Sober up”
He’s never made much sense, and now that the narrative is falling apart I’ve noticed him getting shrill lately. This is just more of the same. There’s no way to counter what Jules is pointing out about Shumer’s defiance of separation of powers. Alphie is trotting out unrelated talking points in desparation since he hasn’t a relevant script to cover this.
It’s been going on on quite a few of the more moronic left sites lately. The lies don’t even track each other anymore. Last hurrah for them was claiming fifth column victory in November. That is proving to have nothing to do with the marching morons and their agenda and as the congress’ approval rating will continue to plummet until the dem leadership gets that in September.
July 29th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
“He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court,…”
Well, that’s a good check on the power of the POTUS. So is the president’s veto power, which he can use to block Democrat graft, especially if they try to block judicial appointments, but it would be a good idea even if they don’t.