John Roberts No Votes Shows Partisanship

The idea that the people on the Senate Judicial Committee were voting based upon facts and not as a political statement is a joke. There are those out there who will tell us that these senators have real feelings and their dissent does not make them bad people. They are free to dissent but I call attention to former jackass of the Month, Chuck Schumer, as an example of a person who had his mind made up before the proceeding began. He was going to vote against the Bush nominee no matter what and he was proud of that. He can afford to play politics because he is not up for reelection. Remember this story from Drudge:

Senate Judiciary Committee member Chuck Schumer got busy plotting away on the cellphone aboard a Washington, DC-New York Amtrak — plotting Democrat strategy for the upcoming Supreme Court battle.

Schumer, promised a fight over whoever the President?s nominee was: ?It’s not about an individual judge? It’s about how it affects the overall makeup of the court.?

Schumer was overheard on a long cellphone conversation with an unknown political ally, and the DRUDGE REPORT was there!

Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, proudly declared, ?We are contemplating how we are going to go to war over this.?

Schumer went on to say how hard it was to predict how a Supreme Court justice would turn out: ?Even William Rehnquist is more moderate than they expected. The only ones that resulted how they predicted were [Antonin] Scalia and [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg. So most of the time they’ve gotten their picks wrong, and that’s what we want to do to them again.?

Schumer later went on to mock the ?Gang of 14? judicial filibuster deal and said it wasn?t relevant in the Supreme Court debate.

?A Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown style appointment may not have been extraordinary to the appellate court but may be extraordinary to the Supreme Court.?

By the time the train hit New Jersey, Schumer shifted gears and called his friend and ?Gang of 14? member, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham. The two talked in a very friendly manner about doing an event sometime this week together. Drudge, July 2005

Chuck made it clear he would not be a part of the process he would obstruct it so the claims that calling the nay-sayers (pun intended) obstructionists is wrong, are foolish. If senators had good reasons to vote against him they should but making your mind up before the process is not a good reason. Partisan politics is not a good reason. Chuckie wants us to believe he is worried that an ideologue would be voted to the bench and he openly named Thomas and Scalia as two people he did not want Roberts to turn out like.

He neglected to mention Ruth Ginsburg because to him and many of the liberals she is viewed as main stream. She is nothing of the kind. She is a far left wing ideologue and Schumer likes her. Fine. She was confirmed 97-3 so it is evident that republicans did not play games. I know it was not because they agree with her. No one in his right mind would actually believe that this many republicans agree with the far left views of Ruth “Buzzy” (as Rush calls her) Ginsburg. The fact is the republicans voted for the person the president nominated knowing that you can never really know how a justice will turn out but well aware that however she did it would be far left.

Liberals can not get over the idea that the judiciary interprets the law. They do not make law. They do not social engineer. They do not make up for past injustice in this country. They look at cases and determine if they are legal according to our Constitution. I think that there will be a few senators that vote against Roberts and they are entitled. If a large number vote against him it will be nothing more than partisan politics. If they can not see a brilliant legal mind, they are in trouble.

Wait! They did see a brilliant legal mind and they are scared. They know that their BS agenda will not be legislated from the bench in a Roberts court. They know that they can not play games with social engineering and they can not pass their illegal ideas and push them down our throats. The left went out of its way to smear a good man. Why on Earth he would even put himself through that when he could be making millions in the real world is beyond me. Perhaps, he actually feels he can be a part of history in getting the judiciary back to interpreting law and not legislating it.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Comments are closed.