The very thought of another Dubya appointee is terrifying. But I flashed back to Marshall, who left the bench right before Bush the Elder got voted out, and the same color replacement Thomas. That was the death spiral that led to Bush V Gore and our nation....no longer ours and a hollowed out effigy of what our forefather fought for....defeated.

This is just another countless article on the Supreme Court that gets the facts wrong. Contrary to the mainstream media's reporting the Supreme Court DID NOT "overturn (a) previous ruling on partial birth abortion" as Paul Krane would have you believe. It simply upheld a law passed by the United States Congress involving a federal abortion law. The previous partial-birth abortion case dealt with a Nebraska state law.

But leave it to the hysterical liberals to charge the Supreme Court with "ignoring precedent" and being "activist" for upholding a law passed by Congress - which by the way passed by a vote of 281-142 in the House and 64-34 in the Senate.

I wonder how many Democrats who jumped on the SCOTUS-bashing bandwagon this summer forgot they were part of the large majority to pass this law.

Schumer calls himself a Democrat. A majority of the people elected Bush in 2004, and many of them voted for him specifically because of the issue of activist liberal judges and the personal sliming of nominees by Democrats that goes on in confirmation hearings.

If he truly believes in Democracy and the Constitution, he shouldn't be saying things like he's going to block Supreme Court nominees no matter what. This position reveals him for what he really is: a close-minded, absolutist bigot who is intent on completely politicizing the nomination process.

Furthermore, what goes around comes around. If he delivers on this threat, there will be no more breeze hearings for the likes of Ruth Ginsburg, perhaps the most radical judge ever confirmed, in the future.

Anonymous (10:52P) is full of crap. Ginsburg is a moderate. It is Roberts, Scalia (and Scalito), and Thomas (the hypocrite) who are the radical ones.

Three U. S. District Courts ruled the partial birth abortion law unConstitutional because there was no exception for the life and health of the mother.

The Supreme Court did overturn those decisions when it ruled.

That Schumer represents the state of New York is one of the two political reasons that I abandoned the state.
That the sitting President has given me the first constructionist court in my lifetime is to his credit.
I would hope that the Republican Senators remember and practice the tactics used by the Democrats when next a radical such as Ginsburg comes before the Senate in a future appointment scenario.

Sounds to me like Schumer is expressing little more than "sour grapes"..."The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance"? Are you kidding???

Why then the crying, whining, moaning and complaining? Because the Democrats can no longer depend on a 5 majority faction of the US Supreme Court to deliver for them what they cannot pass in the legislature. It is encouraging to see politics work both ways.

Schumer's comment that he will "reverse the presumption of confirmation" shows his lack of regard for the Constitution. He is all about partisanship.

I agree with Schumer. Its hard to believe, after six years of lieing and cover-up that this many people would still support Bush. It makes me fear for the Country's future

Wow it is quite obvious from this blog that people support thier political party more than support their country first. You dont have hold a law degree to realize this court is completly out if it when it comes to interpreting the law...

Always interesting to see the arguments, or lack thereof, on these comment pages.

Would ask the question, while understanding some of the nuances of "stare decisis", what difference, in a logical legal sense, does it make if one decision was on a state law and the other on a federal law. If both laws were basically the same and the common thread driving a decision against the state law was the exclusion of an exception for the life and health of the mother and the federal law was deficient in that same area then, at best, they ignored the principal basis for the decision in the state case and thereby did in fact overturn a prior decision. Whether or not that decision was a firm precedent we do have a right to expect our Supreme Court judges to exhibit some sort of consistency from one decision to the next.

The constant haraguing about the Constitution and remaining true to it baffles me. If you read the US Constitution it clearly gives the Congress the primary role in our government. Congress can override vetoes; controls all funding; can add new courts and new judge positions to all courts; is charged with "Advice and Consent" of all the President's nominees from government officials to judges. The latter, especially for judges, was most likely a logistics issue, in that, to establish a committee in the Congress to chose nominees for the various courts from a huge universe of potential candidates would conceivably find us still trying to fill the original Supreme Court. It makes more expiditious sense for someone (the President) to make the appointments of the nominees and then give Congress the authority to approve or reject. Given the entire scope of responsibilities and powers afforded the Congress, in the Constitution, and the minimal authority established for the Presidency it is clear that the founders intented Congress to be the "decider" (sorry W).
The history of the Supreme Court, especially, is replete with judges of one ilk, appointed by Presidents of the same ilk, in practice turning out rulings consistent with an opposite ilk. It has often been written that this phenomonon is likely the result of judges, once comprehending the magnitude of their positions, cast aside their personal, political ideologies and attempt to come to a wisdom commensurate with their awesome responsibility. We are now seeing in the cases of Scalia, Thomas this is not a universal truth. In this regard I think the short tenure of Alito and Roberts make it too soon to make a determination, but the future does look scary.

And oh my, the everpresent "strict constructionist" label. All this nets down to is that the Constitution says "strictly" what I say it says. Much in the same way as "common sense" is defined in today's world; if you don't agree with me then you have no "common sense".
Our founding fathers were no strangers to political bantering and perhaps in their wisdom felt the the best and least intrusive government would be one in which the ultimate power was vested in an assemblage of political animals who would have to come to some sort of compromise to effect anything at all and seemingly this would limit the amount of damage they could do (perhaps shortsighted..lol).

Given the above I believe that, Constitutionally speaking there is no "presumption of confirmation"

I ask you all to consider this question - if the Dems had filibustered Alito's nomination, would they have a majority in Congress today?

I sincerely doubt that they would...

Schumer is right that he made a mistake. I admire him for admitting it and for saying we must quit presuming confirmation. I admire him for his admission of error and for his change or policy for the future. This is how smart and good people operate, unlike our President and Vice President.

What about activist conservative judges?

The gutless refusal of the Democratic senators like Schumer to do much of anything that required an ounce of courage, or (horrors!)might have impacted their ability to get re-elected, is exactly why we have Roberts and Alito. Its also why we are mired in an illegal war in Iraq, and are watching many of our constituional protections gutted by the "imperial presidency" of George Bush. We are living thru a crisis of incompetency in leadership, a low point in American history that I hope the republic can survive.

Hey, bringing the issue of conservative vs. liberal judges to the forefront of the debate would be the best thing to happen to Republicans. I hope this does become a central point in the debate, my side will do very well. It was in 04, and it wasn't in 06'. In 06', corruption and character was the main issue...and it worked against us Republicans. DeLay, sen. Conrad Burns in Montana, Mark Foley, sen. Allen in Va and so on. Every one of these seats were safe R, and they screwed it up. Burns with the Abramoff scandel and Allen with the Macaca comment, 2 safe seats that cost Republicans the senate in 06. If the dems. wanna talk about conservative vs. liberal judges, let's talk bout it in 08!

By the way, Bush didn't woe undecided voters on conservative vs. liberal judges. Bush woed undecided voters in 04 with his "peace through strength" philosophy and won the election. Corruption cost R's in 06, not the war in Iraq.

The reason our whole political system is in gridlock has been vividly displayed by Sen Schumer!

Clearly he doesn't posses the visceral fortitude to do much of anything except to pose in the back ground during press conferences, with some of those other liberals, who at least stand up and commit to something besides their own agendas.

Thank you Mr Negativity....I hope soon that the voters of NY will see through that opacity, and deny you the priviledge of representing them in the future!

Hey, Chuckles, the peons on the street saw through Alito and Roberts' smarmy lies. What took ya? Jeez, this makes you look complicit. Do you think we're all as stupid as you?

Karl Rove is posting on Capital Briefing under the nom-de-plump 'reason'.
What beautiful irony!

Chucky boy, gimme a break! You had no problem approving far-left wack jobs like Ginsburg, Breyer, etc. Bush was re-elected which means he can nominate anyone he choses. Filibustering a nominee, esp. one was qualified as Alito just shows you how petty and childish Senators like Chucky are. If a nominne is qualified then and they vow to uphold the Constitution (not foreign law or their opinions) then they should be given an up or down vote. They deserve it.
Right now many Appeal Courts around the country are in critical condition due to unfilled judgeships...mainly because Democraps won't give them a hearing or vote.

Be careful what you wish for. The practice of blocking nominees works both ways. Don't assume that a Rep Senator wouldn't do the same thing for a Dem Pres nominee.

One of the reasons that the 'presumption of confirmation' exists is that the shoe will soon be on the other foot.

CONSERVATIVES SHOULDN'T BREED.

Schumer makes mistakes every single day, beginning with his daily proclamations of pain for mistakes that he makes. New Yorkers should retire him to the the "old mistakers home", which is appropriately located in New york City, the capital of political, self serving mistakers.

the older "mistakers home in NYC" should be name "MEA CULPA"

Yeh, the 'mea culpa" home residents would include Schumer, both clintons, spitzer, reid, pelosi, finegold ... all on the third floor, named for the fatal third rail associated with instant demise in the subway tunnels.

with the shoe in new york...i'm surprized anyone is still living in new york...oh! and by the way don't get between shoe and a mike....

with the shoe in new york...i'm surprized anyone is still living in new york...oh! and by the way don't get between shoe and a mike....

with the shoe in new york...i'm surprized anyone is still living in new york...oh! and by the way don't get between shoe and a mike....

Video: Sens. Lieberman, Warner Discuss Their Climate Change Cap-and-Trade Bill

A Senate Subcommittee holds a hearing related to economy-wide carbon emissions cap-and-trade legislation developed by Senator Lieberman (I-CT) and Senator John Warner (R-VA).

http://www.energypolicytv.com/climatechange.html#373

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your view, the supreme Court accurately reflects the thinking of the Presidents that we have elected to office starting with Reagan The country took a hard shift to the right after many years of very liberal thinking.

We have had a series of conservative congresses and presidents and the supreme court now reflects that thinking. The country now seems to be trending more towards the center and maybe further left than that.

I have no doubt that if this trend continues, new supreme court justices will reflect more moderate views. It may take some time, but it will eventually happen.

I have ultimate faith in this country. We will survive Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia. There will be more Thurgood Marshall's that will be asked to join the court. The country will survive.

If Senator Schumer wants the Supreme Court to reflect his ideology, perhaps he should try to amend the Constitution to elect judges. However, being as the Constitution did create a non-partisan court, why should anyone care whether or not a nominee shares a similar political ideology? If you are willing to accept as a fundamental premise that conservatives, libertarians and liberals all have legitimate interpretations of the law, then you're going to have plenty of Court decisions that you don't agree with simply b/c there is no one "right" answer. However, if you're like many in the U.S. who no longer think that differences of opinion can be legitimate, then there can only be one "right" answer and we should just vote on the outcome and not have a non-partisan court anyway.

Well put, Arthur.

The chicken littles need to take a deep breath and remember that not every conflict is the end of the world.

Remember folks, theres a great big presidential election coming up, so channel whatever frustrations you feel into picking someone who gives a damn about what makes you so upset.

It's depressing to see that our government is coming to a head to head against itself and we can't work together to fight issues like Global Poverty. According to the Borgen Project, it would only take 19 billion dollars to end starvation worldwide, which is a fraction of the 340 billion we spent on the war. But we're stuck wasting time on this.

Chuck Schumer is a nasal, grandstanding, whiny, partisan. I wonder if anyone on the Hill actually like him?!?!

After casting my first ballot for DDE I have "wasted" my vote more times than for the winner. Having said that, we must keep in mind that for all the warts we still live in the greatest country on this mud ball we call earth. It seems that these days most congress critters are more interested in reelection than in practicing statesmanship. Schumer is one of many, of both parties, that would rather cut out his tongue rather than admit that the other party may have a grip on reality and actually have the safety and security of our country at heart. As a previous poster said, "be careful what you wish for because it may come true." The old saw states that what goes around may come back to bite you in the rear. Look in the mirror and you may see the problem.

Schumer and some of the commentators here want someone who will decided the consitutions says what he wants it to say. Rather than doing his job and legislate, he would prefer the courts make the decisions. He needs to go somewhere and read the constitution himself. Lots of people here should do the same thing.

"And as there would be a necessity for submitting each nomination to the judgment of an entire branch of the legislature, the circumstances attending an appointment, from the mode of conducting it, would naturally become matters of notoriety, and the public would be at no loss to determine what part had been performed by the different actors. The blame of a bad nomination would fall upon the President singly and absolutely. The censure of rejecting a good one would lie entirely at the door of the Senate, aggravated by the consideration of their having counteracted the good intentions of the executive. If an ill appointment should be made, the executive, for nominating, and the Senate, for approving, would participate, though in different degrees, in the opprobrium and disgrace."

The Federalist Papers, No. 77

- Publius TX CD-04

While Mr. Kane's article is well-written and factually accurate, it is flawed. Readers are entitled to receive balanced reporting on an emotionally-based attack like that made by Mr. Schumer. Mr. Kane should have contacted a spokesperson with a different point of view, a member of the Republican party, or a representative from a conservative research center. He should have included quotes from one of those people. In point of fact, for years, the Supreme Court, by substituting its own personal views of policy for those of Congress or state legislators, has been guilty of totalitarianism of a sort.

I left NY State...too dangerous. To mistakenly get between Chuckie and a camera would result in being trampled to death.
Chuck never saw a liber...opps, progresive do anything wrong. His stance now is just to protect himself from another progressive criticizing his votes at some point in the future.
And, should the Democrats take the White House in the next election, his tirade will come back to haunt him, his words will be thrown back in his face and he will be the reason no democratic-nominated individual will be confirmed.
Way to be self-serving and hurt your own party at the same time, Chuckie..
I remember the Progressives (Hilery's term, folks) disdain for Republican comments during the Warren Court years. Not much different then from now.
Regardless of your personnal convictions, neither political viewpoint has ever, or will ever, be granted the position of being "right." And despite my agreement or disagreement with some of the arguements, I and most of those of multiple political persuasions with whom I speak often, believe that the court does its utmost to render justice in the true sense of the word.
Most people have a knee-jerk reaction to a result, never reading the reasoning and background. There is many a lost opportunity to learn in that practice.
Be glad that each and every one of our justices are as dedicated as they are. Certainly each of them could earn far more in private practice. If you respect one, then respect all. If you disrespect one, you disrespect all.

Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are all members of the Federalist Society, which was founded by Judge Robert Bork--a society not only committed to undermining the core of the New Deal but which adheres to the radically subversive "Unitary Executive" theory--a concept which would make the President the ultimate arbiter of the scope of his own powers, undermining the most fundamental pillar of American jurisprudence dating back to Marbury vs. Madison (1803) which holds that constitutional interpretation is a "judicial" function. Alito misled the Senate Judiciary Committee when he said no man is above the law. Under Unitary Executive theory, the president "is" the law.

One more appointing and the Federalist Society will have a majority on the court. Then you can say good bye to our Constitutional Republic and the rule of law.

I can't believe at this stage anyone would be defending Bush. He is without a doubt the worst president this country has ever had. The defenders must be religious fanatics (like Alito).

Ernest, Bork didn't found the Federalist Society. It was a student organization founded at Yale, Harvard & UChicago Law Schools in '82. He was a circuit judge in the DC circuit at the time the FedSoc was founded. And, if you've ever gone to a FedSoc event, you would know that a majority of the FedSoc disagrees with John Yoo's unitary executive theory. Look up Richard Epstein if you'd like a good example of a prominent FedSoc member who disagrees with Yoo on virtually everything.

Seems like there are some here that believe in historical revisionism. As I recall Hatch, Sessions, and Cornyn threated to use the nuclear option had Schumer or Kerry pursued a filibuster of Alito's nomination. I had advocated then and still do that if that is the position of the Republican Senate and Lieberman, that the nuclear option be made permanent and not overturned in '09 with a Democratic President. Seems like these same Republican Senate hypocrits now are quick to use the filibuster when it suits them to block any rational Iraq policies.

As Americans living in a democratic society we are getting exactly what we deserve! We elected Bush and Cheney --at least once-- and now we bear full responsibility for the outcome. We are drowning in debt, without goodwill in the world, and losers in a stupid war against what is possibly the most dangerous enemy the US ever had. What a shame! It is clear that Democracy cannot endure in a society where Politics are more important than logic and common sense.

No Kidding. All you Democrats, every single one of you underestimated this white house. They are by far thee worse aDMINISTRATION IN MY LIFE TIME AND I PRAY THEE WORSE IN HISTORY!!
This coming from an ex-republican, one who now calls them "repukes" They disgust me, and I also pray the party is in the minority for the rest of my days and longer. At least until every single repuke who is now there and has covered for this criminal administration is gone.

No Kidding. All you Democrats, every single one of you underestimated this white house. They are by far thee worse ADMINISTRATION IN MY LIFE TIME AND I PRAY THEE WORSE IN HISTORY!!! I pray no other president is again this BAD, this Corrupt, this Criminal!!!
This coming from an ex-republican, one who now calls them "repukes" They disgust me, and I also pray the party is in the minority for the rest of my days and longer. At least until every single repuke who is now there and has covered for this criminal administration is gone.

I fully support the statements made by Senator Shumer; he and many other Democrats screwed up by letting little Scalito be confirmed for a seat on the Supreme Court. He is a lousy jurist who thinks big business is more important than the individual citizen. And is tearful; crying wife won no sympathy from me; for all you who were so upset; it was a stage show. She was put there to make the Democrats seem real mean and vicious while they ask the little dweeb questions about his possible future positions on matters of law. But like all republican nominees, they all say they don't want to comment on a possible future decision. A slimy construed method thought up by Karly (obese head - dog faced - liar) Rove to avoid ever telling the truth. Oh by the way all Republicans are hypocrites who call themselves Christian. Don't believe me, read your bible. If that isn't proof, then you are dumber that I think you are and will wind up on a fast track to your promised land of hell. Back to the supreme court; we now have a court that with the exception of one single ruling on the environment is hell bent on destroying any rights that protected the poor; support subverting the constitution in the name of big money and business; careless about the individual as long as it interferes with the misinterpretation of the bible; does not believe the US should abide by the Geneva convention accords when it comes to torture and unlawful imprisonment; and fully and undeniably supports anything King George says or wants. Example; Dick (Head) Cheney doesn't need to comply with the law because it he did he would be in prison for lying, cheating, and stealing. Oh yes he did on all counts!!!!!!!

It is amazing that when we have some 5-4 decisions that go against Chukie Boy's wishes we have a situation where "The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance." Duh, what did I miss there? 5-4 that is out of balance? Okay maybe 8-1 or 7-2, but 5-4???? Evidently it must match his views for it to be proper.
It would seem to me to avoid further problems that we could bypass our President and (all of the other senators) and just give this job to Senator "I know better than all others" Schumer. - Oh yeah I forgot the constitution does not work that way - maybe our votes for Bush getting to appoint Justices happened in spite of Sen. Schumer.
For N.Y. I say: chuck Schumer next time.

Neither Thomas nor Alito should have ever been nominated or confirmed. Neither respects a basic tenet of law - "stare decisis" - and would gladly overturn every decision ever made if it fit their whims.

Thomas made it through largely on race. Alito was confirmed because the Dems balked at the "nuclear option" showdown, and not wanting to appear to support gay marriage by court proxy.

Roberts and Scalia, while I vehemently disagree with their philosophy (and Scalia's acrid remarks), were both qualified candidates and worthy of nomination.