Chuck For King
Well, if anyone really believed the "bipartisan" meme that the Democrats peddled before the election, here's the story that should disabuse them once and for all. Chuckles Schumer has flat out promised Bush will not get any more conservatives onto the Supreme Court. Or any Federal court anywhere, ever. Oh, and the loot goes to New York, too.
More than the inability to influence Iraq policy or the President’s tax cuts, Chuck Schumer says that the single greatest failure of the Democrats as an opposition party was allowing Samuel Alito to join the Supreme Court.“Judges are the most important,” said Mr. Schumer, who orchestrated the implausible Democratic takeover of the Senate last week. “One more justice would have made it a 5-4 conservative, hard-right majority for a long time. That won’t happen.”From now on, all the President’s judicial appointments will need to meet the requirements of Mr. Schumer, the Park Slope power broker who has happily accepted the mantle of chief architect for the Democrats’ effort to build a majority for the 2008 elections and beyond.The Senator also intends, in the coming months, to rework the federal government’s funding priorities in New York’s favor, to steer the Democrats toward a radically new position on Iraq and, while he’s at it, to cement his position as the unofficially declared tactical guru for the national party.And in case anyone’s wondering, yes, Mr. Schumer is entirely comfortable with this sort of power.
The Republicans are in for some tough battles in the Congress in general, but the Senate is going to be really tough right now. Go over and read the whole thing, it is three pages of sheer arrogance in full bloom. The Republicans are going to have to counter that triumphalism with some very adroit maneuvering. One hopes they are up to the challenge.
Other Links to this Post
-
A Blog For All — November 15, 2006 @ 9:30 pm
-
Stop The ACLU — November 15, 2006 @ 10:56 pm
-
Blue Crab Boulevard » Blog Archive » Meanwhile In The Senate — November 16, 2006 @ 6:49 am
By Arlo, November 15, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
The people have spoken. If the Senate wasn’t constitutionally gerrymandered what would the number of “conservatives” on the Court be? Maybe 2. Remember those poll numbers on Terry Schiavo, 87% saying the feeding tubes should be removed? Imagine if we had the Supreme Court shoving it down our throats that we have to have people in a vegetative state maintained.
By Quilly Mammoth, November 15, 2006 @ 7:15 pm
OK. Sorry for the forthcoming insult but “constitutionally gerrymandered” is about the dumbest piece of crap I have ever seen floated. Corky boggles in amazement at such a lackwit statement.
We live in a _Republic_, Arlo. A Representative Republic. Which means, in short, a nation ruled by laws and a constitution and not by popular vote. One of those Constitutional bedrocks is that each State will have equal weight in the Senate. Which also has a six year election cycle. All this in order to insure that change comes slowly and one hopes thoughtfully and _not_ at the sudden whim of the electorate.
And, Arlo, you dullard, this also prevents a sudden swing to the right from greatly affecting people like you. I promise you’d be the first one to be shouting if we had a Supreme Court of the US saying that is was perfectly fine to hang homosexuals for Sodomy. People like you would be irate that we had a SCOTUS that reflected the current mood of the electorate…and you disagreed with the electorate.
Yet that’s _exactly_ the type of court _you_ want, Arlo. A court reflective of the current mood. And you haven’t the damn foresight to see what would happen to all you believe in if the mood changes. Judicial Conservatism does not mean politics, it means a reluctance to change law based upon the popular opinion of the day.
So tell me, Arlo, if the next time the “People have spoken” and they _demand_ an end to abortion are you just going say “Cool…it’s what the People have said”?
By Arlo, November 15, 2006 @ 8:28 pm
About as much chance of that as a return to prohibition or segregation or miscegenation laws.
The Senate is constitutionally gerrymandered. Thats a fact, whether you think its good or bad, its a fact, not an opinion. Over 30 million Californians have the same number of senators as – what – half a million Wyomingans.
By Gaius, November 15, 2006 @ 8:37 pm
Arlo, you just proved you have such a shallow understanding of the constitution and why it was set up the way it is that your understanding is all surface.
Like it or not, Arlo, this is not a democracy. Never was. It is a republic. There is an enormously good reason that the founders set it up that way. Too bad you haven’t studied it.
By Quilly Mammoth, November 15, 2006 @ 9:45 pm
But Arlo, you said earlier that we should look at polls. That being the way we see things, in your world. Regarding abotion.
But the number of people who oppose abortion is almost 50% of the current population. Some polls even show it edging slightly towards more…particularly if “late term” is added. So it is entirely possible that amajority of Americnas should oppose abortion. Should it then be law? Particularly seeing as how you made that argument.
You said:
So, Arlo, are you for, or are you aganst the instant will of the people?
By Arlo, November 15, 2006 @ 10:48 pm
As I said, whether its good or bad, its true: The Senate is constitutionally gerrymandered.
Half of all human conceptions self-abort. Do you ever read any big news about scientists and drug companies working on how to save all of those babies? Do you ever read about Jerry Falwell or Ted Haggard of George Bush calling on the scientific community to get to work on new drugs and technologies to save all those babies? No, never. Abortion has always been a bogus issue.
By Gaius, November 15, 2006 @ 10:59 pm
< ?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> < !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
No, it is not, Arlo. You do not understand the elegance of what they drew up. And it is elegant. For it has democracy, with all its inflammatory mob rule mentality AND a serious braking mechanism to allow time for people to understand what they are demanding may not work out for the best. The system was somewhat compromised when Senators were allowed to be voted for popularly, but it is still better than outright mob rule.
Consider: If mob rule had prevailed in the previous (before this last one) election, you might very well have not had the ability to vote in the last election. What if the majority in both chambers simply stripped you who had not voted for them of your rights? If all of the worst hyperventilation on the left had been really true, you would have been silenced.
Do you begin to see, or are you hopeless?
By Arlo, November 16, 2006 @ 8:40 am
Gaius,
You’re really out on a limb. Republicans would agree that the Senate is constitutionally gerrymandered. You don’t like the word “gerrymander.” What we saw in this election was that the American system has self-correcting mechanisms so I’m not so troubled about the Senate being gerrymandered.
By Quilly Mammoth, November 16, 2006 @ 3:09 pm
Probably because you don’t know what it means. It means to draw a district so as to give a specific party power. Who redrew the states to do that, Arlo?
By Arlo, November 17, 2006 @ 7:40 am
Yes, it gave the Republicans power that a majority vote would not give them that every state has 2 senators and at least one House seat. That will change now that the Midwest and Mountain West are going Democrat out of revulsion at what Bush and the Republican Congress have done to the Republican party.