Schumer Says Senators ‘Duped’ By Justices

U.S. Supreme Court

Schumer Says Senators ‘Duped’ By Justices

Posted Jul 27, 2007, 08:01 pm CST
By Molly McDonough

A powerful Democratic senator from New York told the American Constitution Society on Friday that the Senate should avoid confirming another one of President Bush's Supreme Court nominees.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., said a confirmation to the high court should only come in "extraordinary circumstances,” reports The Politico.

He told the group, which was gathered in Washington, D.C., for a convention, that it was time to "reverse the presumption of confirmation."

“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," Politico reports.

Reuters further reports that Schumer said that senators had been "duped" by then-nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito when they appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for their confirmation hearings.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino denounced the senator's comments as showing "a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution."

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by Fernando Rivero - 1 year, 4 months, 3 days, 10 hours, 52 minutes ago

It is unclear in what way senators had been “duped” by statements that Supreme Court nominees may have made at their confirmation hearings. Nominees usually leave a paper trail of years behind them that functions as significant evidence of the evolution of their legal views. This information was made generally available and I do not recall any reports that suggest that such information was kept from the Senate. It falls to senators to weigh any nominees’ statements that suggest a sudden and drastic departure from their written work against the consistency of that written record. Legal tigers rarely change their stripes, it would seem, and it would probably benefit senators - particularly those without legal training - to do some reading on the development of judicial jurisprudence.
Posted by Phillip E. Seltzer - 1 year, 3 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 22 hours, 49 minutes ago

The only “dupe” are dopey Sentators who thinks its appropriate to try an extract promises from a Supreme Court nominee on how they will vote once they are on the bench. The Senators have all forgotten that the Judiciary is a co-equal branch of goverment indepndent from the others. The ridiculous nomination side show of democratic Senators asking absurdly loaded questions, trying to pass them off as some kind of dialogue on constitutinal theory, iconstitutes an unethical attempt to extract conditions and promises from the nominees on how they should vote on some future case. Its a grotestque perversion of their role in the process.. Schumer’s exhibits nothing but hubris and perverts the advise and consent clause beyond all acceptable norms by threatening to withould all nominees. Does any one wonder why Congressional approval ratings are under 28%.. Schumer is an out and out political litmus test guy - who engages in pretense over whether a candidate is “qualified” to sit on our high court. Under Schumer’s view, only canditates that will agree to sacrifice their own independent thought and agree up front the kind of “political” case results Mr,. Schumer prefers are “qualified.“ Can someone send this guy a copy of the Constitution? Please?
Posted by Jeff - 1 year, 3 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 22 hours, 28 minutes ago

I’d planned on voicing my disgust, but the two previous comments are just too good already.
Posted by Morgan - 1 year, 3 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 22 hours, 4 minutes ago

“Advice and Consent” of the Senate does not mean “compulsory tea,“ then give W whatever he wants. Comments 1 - 3 represent those who either also have been duped, or support the ongoing duping. Here’s how: If you ask a nominee if he supports abortion rights, you’re asking a litmus test question. If you ask a nominee if they agree that the framers intent should control (meaning are they against abortion), that is supposedly not a litmus test. If commentors 1 - 3 don’t understand this, they are being duped. If they do understand this, but make the gasping and anxiety-ridden statements they did and act like they don’t engage in the same “litmus testing” under a different set of questions, then they are duping.

If people don’t like “consent” in “advice & consent,“ they should tell their Senators they really want the Supreme Court in the Executive Branch’s total control, and amend the constitution to strike “Consent” and substitute “high tea.“
Posted by thy - 1 year, 3 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 3 hours, 53 minutes ago

Thank you, Morgan. Duped is an understatement.
Posted by Carl - 1 year, 3 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 7 hours, 2 minutes ago

I agree with Senator Schumer. Both these men stood before the Senate and explained how important it is for the U.S. Supreme Court to follow precedent of previous cases and then turn around and ignore precedent after precedent to reach the decisions they want to reach. The recent antitrust decision overruling 100 years of precedent that vertical price fixing is per se illegal is a good example. Mr. Bush has already shown his disregard of the Constitution in his excessive use of signing statements (especially to declare his position of not enforcing or following the newly enacted law and his use of wireless wiretaps against American citizens without court approval.
Posted by David Elia - 1 year, 3 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 13 hours, 35 minutes ago

I totally agree with Messrs Rivera, Selter and “Jeff”. (I notice that the dissenters do not (purposefully?) identify themselves more specifically.).
Although I realize that my logic (or anyone else’s may be fallible), I hope for an independent judiciary that evolves with society (ie one that utilizes the framers’ intent (or even precedent) as a starting point, but realizes that no matter how smart our founders (or other courts) were, they were unable to envision an evolved civilization that is faced with the issues of the 21st century such as abortion, stem cell research, etc). I see these limus test questions by either Republicans or Democrats as thinly veiled attempts to select jurists that may subscribe to their own agendas. This would certainly not result in as independent 3rd branch of government intended as a separate check and balance on the other 2. Although I may not agree with every position espoused by Chief Justice Roberts or Justices Ginsburg or Alito, I trust and respect them immensely.
Posted by Dave McVey - 1 year, 3 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 21 hours, 35 minutes ago

The Senator has no credibility on this one becuase he did not criticise Justice Souter whose opinions and positions resemble none of the comments he made before the Senate. As one person stated in an ABA Journal atricle, “the guy flat out lied.“
Posted by Christopher Healy - 1 year, 3 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 4 hours, 43 minutes ago

Regardless of Mr. McVey’s credibility assessment, he emphasizes the larger point made by the Senator; the presumption of confirmation should be reversed.
Posted by John Shack - 1 year, 3 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 17 hours, 34 minutes ago

Senator Schumer seems to have no understanding of the constitution. the President has historically been given great latitude in selecting judges. if they are fit they should be confirmed. Schumer seems the judges need to meet some general consensus. He does not understand the founding father’s most critical decision. To make this goverment representative , not a pure demaocracy.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

U.S. Supreme Court