A typical liberal reaction to our Constitution…but shameful nonetheless. Details:
Following are excerpts from an interview with US Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which aired on Al-Hayat TV on January 30, 2012.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: It is a very inspiring time – that you have overthrown a dictator, and that you are striving to achieve a genuine democracy. So I think people in the United States are hoping that this transition will work, and that there will genuinely be a government of, by, and for the people.
I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I’m operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation, and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world. (Just so you know, you statist hag, that is NOT a bad thing…it’s a GREAT thing! – CL)
You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution – Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?
In other words, the very Constitution she has sworn to uphold is, in her own words, outdated. No d@mned wonder this wench looks to foreign law to mold her leftist decisions: she doesn’t think very highly of our own laws, statutory or constitutional. As the Spectator notes, while she was praising the freedoms found in our First Amendment, she was oblivious to the fact that those rights are far less protected in South Africa, Canada, and Europe than they are here. Maybe she’s racist for not wanting those rights extended to Egyptians?
If Uhhhhhhbama gets re-elected, he will look to find another one of these anti-American jackwagons to sit on the SCOTUS in the event of another vacancy. It is shameful that such a moron serves on the bench of the Supreme Court.
Al Gore set the precedent: If you lose, sue. Details:
There’s nothing quite like a politician scorned.
When voters in Ohio’s 1st Congressional District threw Democrat Steve Driehaus out of office after only one term, he did not bow out gracefully. No, he decided to get even. So he did what anyone does in today’s culture: he sued somebody.
Charging that its activities contributed to his defeat and thus to his “loss of livelihood,” Driehaus is suing the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that supports pro-life candidates for Congress and which has been one of the leading and most effective organizations involved in the fight to cut off federal funding to Planned Parenthood.
What a jackwagon.
Let the arrogance and gall sink in for a second. Driehaus is saying that because he lost an election, he had a “loss of livelihood”…as if he had a right to live off of the taxpayers’ dime! Hey, he’d fit right in with the Occupy Wall Street losers, wouldn’t he? With that kind of entitlement mentality, no wonder he’s a Democrat.
So why did the Susan B. Anthony List oppose Driehaus?
During the 2010 elections the Susan B. Anthony List engaged in a campaign to identify and call out a group of allegedly anti-abortion-rights members of Congress who provided the margin that allowed President Barack Obama’s reform of the nation’s healthcare system to get through the U.S. House of Representatives. The Susan B. Anthony List said their vote in favor of the law, which did not include any pro-life protections, amounted to a betrayal of their pro-life principles.
According to Driehaus, who was one of that group, what the Susan B. Anthony List said in its public communications amounted to a malicious lie that contributed to his defeat. …
The SBA List said that voting for ObamaCare was a vote against their pro-life principles. How can this be a lie? They saw a vote for ObamaCare without the Stupak Amendment as a vote against pro-life, and Driehaus did vote for ObamaCare. So exactly where is the lie?
Anywho, at least a judge is tossing the case out of court with a guffaw and scorn. Nah, just kidding:
…Amazingly, rather than laugh the suit out of court U.S. District Court judge Timothy S. Black, an Obama appointee, is allowing it to go forward.
Driehaus’s suit is breaking new legal ground and may already be having a very chilling effect on political speech. It goes directly at the heart of our First Amendment protections and criminalizes what is at least a difference of opinion. And it’s curious that the case has not received more attention from the national press.
What is equally curious, however, is why Judge Black has allowed the case to move forward and why he did not recuse himself from it since, as Barbara Hollingsworth reported Friday in The Washington Examiner, he apparently is the former president and director of the Planned Parenthood Association of Cincinnati. As seeming conflicts of interest go this one is a real humdinger.
First Amendment? Bueller? Bueller?
So, an Obama appointee who used to be the director of Planned Parenthood of Cincinnati didn’t think there was a conflict of interest in hearing a case involving an organization who is opposed to PP’s mission? A man who used to run the nation’s largest taxpayer-funded abortion mill organization is somehow totally objective when it comes to lawsuits against a group that was undoubtedly a thorn in his side? Un-friggin’-believable!
I doubt any court above this one will uphold a ruling in favor of Driehaus, and I am certain that higher courts would take Black to the woodshed. But how shameful is it that a loser sues a group for trying (with success) to get him defeated in an election by simply reporting his vote and not endorsing him for his vote? Election results would be forever altered if courts allow this kind of shameful sore loserness to occur.
Slackers, liberals, MSM (but I repeat myself) hardest hit. Excerpt:
An appeals court ruled Friday that President Barack Obama’s healthcare law requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty was unconstitutional, a blow to the White House.
The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.
The legality of the so-called individual mandate, a cornerstone of the 2010 healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the Supreme Court. The Obama administration has defended the provision as constitutional.
The case stems from a challenge by 26 U.S. states which had argued the individual mandate, set to go into effect in 2014, was unconstitutional because Congress could not force Americans to buy health insurance or face the prospect of a penalty.
“This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives,” a divided three-judge panel said.
And why must we render liberals impotent in politics? For #sshats like this guy:
…One of the three judges of the appeals court panel, Stanley Marcus, agreed with the administration in dissenting from the majority opinion. The majority “has ignored the undeniable fact that Congress’ commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy,” Marcus wrote.
Just another turn in the road on the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. But take victories like this as we get them, folks.
Wisconsin supreme court overturns liberal judicial activist’s ruling, reinstates collective bargaining limitation law
Not only did the WI supreme court overturn the leftist judicial activist hack’s ruling, the court (a) made the law effective immediately and (b) rhetorically backhanded this wench across her maw.
Check out Legal Insurrection‘s rundown of what happened. It’s not long, but it is clear. Summary:
WI legislature passes budget repair bill, which includes the limitations on public employee unions’ collective bargaining. WI Democrats accuse the legislature of violating the Open Meetings Law in passing the budget repair bill. WI Dems find a sympathetic judge in Maryann Sumi, who issues a Temporary Restraining Order and decrees that the bill (and not the law) cannot move forward due to the violation of the Open Meetings Law.
The state supreme court is appalled, on two fronts: (1) that a judge “exceeded its jurisdiction, invaded the legislature’s constitutional powers under Article IV, Section 1 and Section 17 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and erred in enjoining the publication and further implementation of the Act” (the court’s words, not mine); and (2) that a judge would outright ignore a prior state supreme court ruling (Goodland v. Zimmerman) that a court cannot rule a bill unconstitutional. Courts can only rule on laws, not on bills that have yet to become law. Quote the supreme court:
There is no such thing known to the law as an unconstitutional bill. A court cannot deal with the question of constitutionality until a law has been duly enacted and some person has been deprived of his constitutional rights by its operation.
Goodland v. Zimmerman was the case that affirmed such a prohibition of ruling on the constitutionality of bills. Judge Sumi ignored that ruling, saying basically that “Yeah, but that ruling was done before the Open Meetings Law, so it’s not valid anymore.” The WI supreme court said “Lady, you’re on some heavy doses of LSD if that’s what you think.”
Here’s where the supreme court really pops Judge Sumi in her kisser:
¶6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all orders and judgments of the Dane County Circuit Court in Case No. 2011CV1244 are vacated and declared to be void ab initio. State ex rel. Nader v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., No. 2004AP2559-W, unpublished order (Wis. S. Ct. Sept. 30, 2004) (wherein this court vacated the prior orders of the circuit court in the same case).
¶7 This court has granted the petition for an original action because one of the courts that we are charged with supervising has usurped the legislative power which the Wisconsin Constitution grants exclusively to the legislature. …
Ace summarizes what void ab initio means:
Generally, when a higher court calls bullsh#t on a lower one, it’s called a remand, a declaration that the lower court got it wrong, and to try again.
Commenters are telling me the court ruled here ab initio, which (context clues, it’s been forever since I did anything law-oriented) means it’s expunged from memory altogether as being improperly entertained from the start, which means there is no remand to the lower court to try again. The higher court has said “Not only did you get this wrong, you got it so wrong we don’t trust you with another bite at the apple, so we’re directing your decision from here. It’s over. Done. Finished. Kaput.”
Ouch! That’s gonna leave a mark!
Chalk up a victory to the rule of law.
Federal judge (Clinton appointee) rules ObamaCare constitutional because Congress can regulate “mental activity”
Arguably the scariest ruling yet in the ObamaCare court circus. Details:
A federal judge has upheld the national health care law, making it the fifth ruling on the merits of the legal challenges to the individual mandate.
The ruling by the Clinton appointee, U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler of the District of Columbia continues the pattern of Democratic-appointed judges siding with the Obama administration and Republican judges siding with the plaintiffs in ruling the mandate unconstitutional. Kessler’s ruling comes in a case brought by individual plaintiffs, where as the two decisions striking down the mandate have come in cases brought by 27 states, based in Virginia and Florida.
Like the other decisions upholding the law, the logic of Kessler’s ruling demonstrates how broadly one has to interpret congressional powers to find the mandate constitutional. In something right out of Harrison Bergeron, Kessler notes that Washington has the authority to regulate “mental activity”:
As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power…However, this Court finds the distinction, which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance. It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not “acting,” especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.
It is worth noting, however, that even Kessler concedes that “there is little judicial guidance” on this question.
Apparently, “mental activity” is no longer a requirement to be a federal judge.
Got that? “Mental activity” can be regulated by Congress, which is something that the Founding Fathers obviously intended to be a proper federal role. For those of you on the left, the last part of the prior sentence was sarcasm.
Interestingly, remember when Chairman O got snippy with George Snuffalupagus (or whatever the h3ll his name is) about how ObamaCare’s individual mandate was a tax…then argued in court that Congress could issue the mandate because the Constitution allows Congress to tax? Yeah, the Kerryesque “it actually wasn’t a tax, before it was”? Well, even this Clinton judge rejected that notion, saying that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate our thoughts and that alone was reason enough to allow the mandate to stand.
Orwell just called. He asked if we still think he was paranoid for writing 1984.
And not just the clearly unconstitutional individual mandate part. It’s still fresh, but here’s the early takeaway:
Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”
The VA judge ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, but that the rest of the law was allowed to be intact. The FL judge disagreed, saying that because there was no severability clause, the WHOLE FRIGGIN’ LAW is unconstitutional!
By the way, the judge’s decision is here (PDF). My favorite quote (other than the part about ALL of it being unconstitutional):
It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the Act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce” [see Act § 1501(a)(1)], it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted. It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.
A “tea” reference, too…just to tweak the moonbats!
Obviously, this isn’t the end. It will most certainly wind up in the lap of the Supreme Court, where I strongly suspect there will be a 5-4 ruling one way or the other (depends on what side of the bed Justice Kennedy wakes up). Either way, savor the victory for now, my friends!
But hey, where would you get the idea that Dems are morally bankrupt reprobates who are soft on crime? Details:
On a party-line vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee has approved President Obama’s promotion of a federal judge who tried to block the execution of a serial killer and rapist known as the Roadside Strangler based on the unbelievable ground that this serial killer’s “sexual sadism” was a mitigating factor. The judge did so even though this serial killer admitted his sentence was appropriate and did not seek to challenge it. Obama nominated this judge to serve on a federal appeals court known as the 2nd Circuit. The newspaper Roll Call reports:
“The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination of Judge Robert Chatigny to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Thursday on a largely party-line vote (Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? It was a 100% party-line vote! – Ed.) despite stiff GOP opposition over his handling of child pornography and rape cases as a district court judge. With Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) abstaining on the vote, the committee’s other 11 Democrats approved the nomination Thursday morning, while the committee’s entire seven-member contingent of Republicans voted ‘no.’ In a series of cases involving defendants found guilty of child pornography, rape and sexual assault cases, Chatigny used the process of downward departure to reduce their sentences. Chatigny also played a central role in the ‘roadside strangler’ case. In that case, Chatigny allegedly threatened to pull the law license of the attorney for a convicted killer — who has been on death row for 15 years — unless he continued his efforts to have the sentence overturned. Chatigny’s nomination has been hotly contested by victims’ rights advocates and the families of several high-profile victims, including the family of Elizabeth Smart, who was kidnapped in 2002.”
The Judiciary Committee ignored objections from victims-rights advocates like Edward Smart of the Surviving Parents Coalition, who noted that Judge Chatigny had not just opposed the execution of “Roadside Strangler” Michael Ross, but also gone further, to question his very conviction, based on silly reasons: “Judge Chatigny claimed Ross was incompetent to stand trial based on the prison environment and Ross’s sexual sadism.” This sort of making excuses for dangerous criminals to overturn their convictions (and potentially set them free) is extremely disturbing.
Footage of the Judiciary Committee hearing makes clear that even some liberal Senators found Chatigny’s record disturbing, but they voted for him anyway out of blind party loyalty to Obama, who nominated him.
I see. “We don’t like this perv, but President Kick#ss nominated him, so we gotta drink the Kool-Aid and blindly go along with it.” Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
Ace has a good analysis:
That in most codes, “sexual torture” and such like is counted as an aggravating factor in murder that can qualify you for the noose.
This judge insists that not only isn’t an aggravating factor, it’s a mitigating factor, and, indeed, can be an exonerating factor.
He questions whether most serial killers should be on death row at all, or even in prison at all.
Only in Leftistland does promoting such a sick judicial activist seem like a good idea.
Well, this would certainly explain a lot about the depravity exhibited by that sham of a court, wouldn’t it? How’s this for irony?
One of the highest-ranking federal judges in the United States, who is currently presiding over an obscenity trial in Los Angeles, has maintained a publicly accessible website featuring sexually explicit photos and videos.
Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, acknowledged in an interview with The Times that he had posted the materials, which included a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows and a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal. Some of the material was inappropriate, he conceded, although he defended other sexually explicit content as “funny.”
Kozinski, 57, said that he thought the site was for his private storage and that he was not aware the images could be seen by the public, although he also said he had shared some material on the site with friends. After the interview Tuesday evening, he blocked public access to the site. …
In all fairness, dude is a Reagan appointee, but when someone needs a whackin’, a whackin’ they shall get. At any rate, I wonder if his affinity for such “material” will result in him being recused from presiding over the L.A. obscene p0rn case.
These are the kinds of judges that liberals try to put on the bench every day: judicial activists. From Minnesotastan:
Chief U.S. District Judge James Rosenbaum surprised a courtroom full of federal agents, prosecutors and public defenders Tuesday when he sentenced a man who collected child pornography to less than half the recommended time behind bars.
He also ordered Assistant U.S. Attorney William Otteson to find someone to take care of the St. Paul man’s pet cat, “Mike.”
Rosenbaum has no love for child pornographers. Last May, he sentenced a 53-year-old Burnsville man to 750 years in prison for taking lascivious photographs of two young relatives and three of their friends and posting them to the Internet.
But he gave Frederick Kennedy-Hippchen, 63, just four years for collecting similar pictures.
Cynthia Brown, a computer expert with the FBI, testified at a hearing Tuesday that Kennedy-Hippchen was downloading child porn when agents arrived to search his St. Paul apartment in January 2006.
Brown said he had installed the Lime Wire file-sharing program to find media files based on specific search terms.
Kennedy-Hippchen’s attorney, Timothy Anderson, argued for probation. He said his client’s reprehensible conduct should not obliterate a lifetime of volunteering and good works. (Um, yeah…it should. – Ed.)
Kennedy-Hippchen earned a master’s degree in theology and a master’s in divinity equivalency, Anderson noted. (Is this dude auditioning for Catholic priesthood? – Ed.) He has worked in chemical dependency counseling and recently completed paralegal course work.
“There was no previous history,” he said. “I’m reasonably comfortable he will not re-offend.”
Rosenbaum agreed. “There is no evidence that this defendant is likely to further offend,” he said. (Right, because pedophiles never do, right? Imbecile! – Ed.)
So the new legal standard for wiping your robed backside with sentencing guidelines is a “reasonable comfort” that a kiddie p0rn viewer won’t do it again? Friggin’ wonderful.
This part probably p#sses me off as much as the sentence:
Rosenbaum asked Otteson if he could assure the court that the government could take care of the pets. After checking with FBI agents, Otteson said he could not, as he knew of nothing authorizing the FBI to do that.
“Oh yes you can,” Rosenbaum boomed. “You can take that on an emergency basis to the 8th Circuit [Court of Appeals] if you like,” he said. “Somebody’s got to take care of the animals!”
So the job of the federal government in general, and the FBI in particular, is to pet-sit? Wouldn’t it have been more reasonable for the pervert’s attorney to have taken care of that? Why, of course not! Instead, let’s divert federal agents from the job of protecting America to watch after Fluffy while its owner is in the pen for ogling naked kids!
What liberals cannot achieve legislatively, they achieve judicially. Some bleeding heart moron gets his own court and completely ignores his role in order to advance his own sick agenda.
Where else would you expect this kind of naked judicial activism other than Californiastan? From LA’s Daily News:
Shawn Sage long dreamed of joining the military, and watching “Full Metal Jacket” last year really sold him on becoming a Marine.
But last fall, a Los Angeles Superior Court commissioner dashed the foster teen’s hopes of early enlistment for Marine sniper duty, plus a potential $10,000 signing bonus.
In denying the Royal High School student delayed entry into the Marine Corps, Children’s Court Commissioner Marilyn Mackel reportedly told Sage and a recruiter that she didn’t approve of the Iraq war, didn’t trust recruiters and didn’t support the military.
“The judge said she didn’t support the Iraq war for any reason why we’re over there,” said Marine recruiter Sgt. Guillermo Medrano of the Simi Valley USMC recruiting office.
“She just said all recruiters were the same – that they `all tap dance and tell me what I want to hear.’ She said she didn’t want him to fight in it.”
Sage, 17, said he begged for Mackel’s permission.
“Foster children shouldn’t be denied (an) ability to enlist in the service just because they’re foster kids,” he said. “Foster kids shouldn’t have to go to court to gain approval to serve one’s country.”
Mackel, a juvenile dependency commissioner at the Children’s Court in Monterey Park, declined through a clerk to speak about any court case or comments she may have made in court.
Transcripts of juvenile court hearings require a special release from a judge. Court officials said a transcript of the Sage hearing, if released, would not be available for a week or more.
After Sage submitted a winning entry to the lawmaker’s Write a Bill Challenge, Assemblyman Cameron Smyth introduced legislation last month that would allow foster teens to enlist in the service without express permission from a judge.
Instead, AB2238 would allow foster children 17 or older to sign up with the consent of a foster parent or social worker.
“Here is one impressive young man who somehow made it through the challenge of the foster system, had a clear sense of a career path and was denied that opportunity by a judge basically because of her personal bias,” said Smyth, R-Santa Clarita, who will honor Sage today at a Royal High assembly.
“I find that to be a horrific abuse of her power.” …
Did the judge say that a law was unconstitutional? Nope. The wench just said “I hate the war and the military, and so does my bailiff, so that’s all that matters. Up yours, kid!” I don’t know if her position is an elected one or not, but I sure hope so.
This is an outrage on so many levels. From the NY Daily News:
Alice Camarillo, who is legally blind, says she was ridiculed when she asked for help reading the menu at fast-food restaurants like Burger King, McDonald’s, Taco Bell and Wendy’s.
She sued. A federal judge in Albany threw it out, saying the law doesn’t require restaurant workers to be polite.
Yesterday, a Manhattan federal appeals court overruled the lower court, and Camarillo can sue the restaurants under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
“I feel good about it,” Camarillo, who lives in upstate Hudson, told the Daily News. “I’m just sorry it took so long. Quite a few things that they did were humiliating.”
During a visit to Burger King, employees “laughed and stared” and pointed her in the direction of the men’s room when she asked for a bathroom, she claims.
At Taco Bell, a cashier told her to wait until the rest of the customers had ordered.
“Put simply, Camarillo cannot experience full and equal enjoyment of defendants’ services if she is unable to access the list of the services available to her,” the appeals court said.
Last year, Albany Federal Court Judge Gary Sharpe dismissed the suit, saying Camarillo was never denied service at the restaurants. Sharpe said ADA laws don’t regulate “rudeness or insensitivity” of workers.
The appeals judges’ disagreed.
On the one hand, the #ssh0le employees ought to be fired for being rude to a customer, regardless of her disability. Factor in her disability, and they should be fired in a publicly humiliating way. “Freedom of speech” doesn’t mean that there are no ramifications for saying things. It just means that you can’t go to jail for it.
On the other hand, the appeals court stepped way over the line when it ruled that restaurants must be polite to customers. It’s good business to be polite, and bad business to be impolite. If the blind woman wants to sue for emotional distress suffered in the restaurant, I don’t blame her. But for the court to mandate manners? Gimme a freakin’ break!
The latest from San Franfreakshow’s Ninth Circus Court of Appeals:
On Tuesday, the court decided that Alberto Quintero-Salazar – a Mexican national and legal resident of the U.S. – could not be deported on the basis of a sex crime he committed in 1998, namely illegal intercourse between an adult over 21 and a youth under 16. According to the court, adults taking sexual advantage of a minor (so long as they have the “consent” that minors are legally unable to provide) are not guilty of a crime of “moral turpitude,” which is needed to subject legal U.S. residents to deportation.
Congrats to the militant degenerates who make up this court: they’ve managed to advance both the Mexican invasion and the sexual exploitation of children — two favorite progressive causes — in a single misruling.
Judge Sidney Thomas wrote for the majority that statutory rape “is not inherently base, vile or depraved.” Oh yes it is, Thomas. And so are moonbats like you.
This is great news for guys like R. Kelly and Scott Ritter, whose mottos are “as long as there’s grass on that field, play ball!” For the rest of non-depraved and normal America, I’d recommend not raising your kids in San Fransicko.
From the Examiner:
According to Jeffrey Toobin’s new book on the Supreme Court, Justice David Souter nearly resigned in the wake of Bush v. Gore, so distraught was he over the decision that effectively ended the Florida recount and installed George W. Bush as president.
In “The Nine,” which goes on sale Sept. 18, Toobin writes that while the other justices tried to put the case behind them, “David Souter alone was shattered,” at times weeping when he thought of the case. “For many months, it was not at all clear whether he would remain as a justice,” Toobin continues. “That the Court met in a city he loathed made the decision even harder. At the urging of a handful of close friends, he decided to stay on, but his attitude toward the Court was never the same.”
Were we to have been so lucky! Those poor folks in New London, CT, may still have their property today had Souter left the Court.
Sen. Charles Schumer plays the “dupe” card. Yes, you can question his competency now. He admits it–he’s an idiot:
U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito “duped” the U.S. Senate into confirming them, a top Democratic lawmaker charged on Friday, days after a key Republican questioned if they had lived up to their promises.
Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, a member of the Judiciary Committee that held hearings on the two, said they staked out moderate positions in congressional testimony but became part of a conservative bloc that issued restrictive rulings on issues from free speech to civil rights.
Schumer, in a speech to the American Constitution Society, talked about the confirmation of Roberts and Alito in 2005 and 2006, respectively.
“Were we duped?” he asked.
“Were we too easily impressed by the charm of nominee Roberts and the erudition of nominee Alito?” Schumer asked. “Did we mistakenly vote our hopes when our fears were more than justified by the ultraconservative records of these two men?”
“Yes,” he said.
As penance for the Democrats’ self-admitted stupidity, Schumer is now threatening to snuff any new confirmations of Bush high court nominees. Via Politico:
New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
“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.”
Yeah, that whole “President gets to pick his court nominees” can be a real b#tch, huh, Schmuck Schumer?
Exit question: If Bush is as much of a moron as the left says he is, then exactly what does it say about the intelligence of Democrats that they were “duped” by him on Iraq, judges, etc.?
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett