Patterico's Pontifications


More Evidence that Schumer Is a Liar

Filed under: Judiciary,Morons — Patterico @ 6:27 am

Chuckie S. repeatedly said that he didn’t want another Scalia or Thomas, but he would be fine with another Rehnquist. For example, Chuckie S. asked Roberts during the hearings:

So now we must take the evidence we have and try to answer the fundamental question: What kind of justice will John Roberts be?

Will you be a truly modest, temperate, careful judge in the tradition of Harlan, Jackson, Frankfurter and Friendly?

Will you be a very conservative judge who will impede congressional prerogatives but does not use the bench to remake society, like Justice Rehnquist?

Or will you use your enormous talents to use the court to turn back a near-century of progress and create the majority that justices Scalia and Thomas could not achieve?

Chuckie repeated the theme in this speech during the final Committee debate:

That’s why I struggled with this decision so long and so hard. If he is a Rehnquist, that would not be a cause for exultation in my book, but it would not be a cause for alarm. The court’s balance will not be altered. But there is a reasonable danger that he will be like Justice Thomas, the most radical justice on the Supreme Court.

Raise your hand if you think Chuckie would have voted for Roberts if Roberts had answered specific questions about how he would vote, with the same answers William Rehnquist would have given — including a declaration that he would be a vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

I see no hands.

7 Responses to “More Evidence that Schumer Is a Liar”

  1. just wanted to reiterate my Sept 9 Post: My pick is Estrada

    Estrada and Roberts have almost identical resumes, experience and the most important thing, duplicate experience in the Solicitor General’s office. If SocGen documents are not released and democrats vote for Roberts, how can they vote against confirming Estrada?

    Go Mr. President, nominate Miguel Estrada, a young, strong conservative hispanic, and watch the left literally, spontaneously combust.

    jp (c62ed0)

  2. I second jp’s motion.

    rls (0516f0)

  3. Gosh, Senator Schumer might not always bee 100% truthful? This was a revelation that was hardly worth the bandwidth.

    Dana R. Pico (8d0335)

  4. I third jp’s motion. A spontaneous combustion of the left would satisfy my wildest fantasy. Not to mention that we would actually get a fine justice in the bargain. What has been done to Miguel Estrada is a crime.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  5. Radical, eh. So, THAT’S that the new code word. I guess it sounds better than “uppity.”

    TNugent (6128b4)

  6. The Dems will fight tooth and nail. It’s going to be one heck of a fight no matter who President Bush nominates. I just hope it will be someone moderates, conservatives, and Republicans can rally around, someone who understands the limits of the job and will abide by our laws and not try to dictate from the bench.

    It would also be nice if the nominee was someone who was able to push the barking moonbats over the edge. They are already in the advanced stages of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome), and it wouldn’t take too much to push them over the edge into an incoherent drooling-at the-mouth babbling hysteria. They deserve it, they’ve earned it, and they’ve got it coming, and I want to see it.

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2354 secs.