This is disturbing….

The Politico  is reporting the Senator Schumer (D-NY) has decided that he and the Senate should have the ultimate say on who is on the Supreme Court:

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.”

Judge, jury, and executioner?  It is once thing to have the power to confirm a Presidential candidate or not based on their merits; it is another to announce well ahead of time that it matters NOT what the person’s qualifications are or are not.  In effect, is Schumer setting up a Constitutional crisis by hamstringing the other two branches of government?  He, in effect, is telling the President that power granted to him by the Constitution has just been revoked.  He is telling the Supreme Court that they may have to function without a full bench.

For years, I have heard of the "Imperial Presidency" and how bad it is for the country for the Executive branch to have too much power.  Given what I have seen from this Democratic Congress, the phrase "Imperial Congress" has already arrived.  Ever since the Dems took over the Congress in November (due to poor stewardship of the Republican leadership at all levels), they have attempted to run roughshod over the Administration and making pronouncements of inevitibility.  While  it is a good thing that some of the Republican leadership finally found a spine and true leadership qualities to put a kibosh to many silly things, the attitude of the Dems in this case will come back to haunt them.

Hyperpartisanship flows both ways when needed, and the divisiveness shown by Schumer is simply outrageous. 

“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.”

Given how long the Court has been liberal, in my opinion, it is a correction well overdue.  But it also brings to the fore a feeling that there should always be a "balance" between conservative and liberals….which is nonsense.  Elections have consequences, and losing a Presidential election has ramifications on Supreme Court nominations.

It is one thing to vote down an unqualified candidate – it is another to only say "no" to ANY candidates because they don’t fit one’s sense of liberalness (and later, conservativeness).  

I’m no lawyer (and I’m not going to play one in a blog either), but if the person is legally qualified, the Senate should affirm a President’s nomination – even if I hate the philosophy of that nomination. 

 

Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.

Senators were too quick to accept the nominees’ word that they would respect legal precedents, and “too easily impressed with the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito,” Schumer said.

“There is no doubt that we were hoodwinked,” said Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Congress should ascertain if the candidate meets the legal requirements of the position, not their political leanings.  And once on the bench, that’s it.

A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said Schumer’s comments show "a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution" by suggesting that the Senate not confirm nominees.