“Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”

And then notice that she quickly caught herself clarified her comment and said,

“And I know, and I know this is on tape — I should never say that ’cause ‘we don’t make law’ . . . I know. Ummmm . . . uhhhh . . . Okay. I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it, I’m . . . you know . . .“

I’m assuming that her flailing hand movements gesticulating at the moment she said “’cause we don’t make law” meant she was putting quotation marks around what she clearly considers utter hogwash a political shibboleth.

So, what she really meant to say was that the Court of Appeals does set the policies, and that legislators just pass laws, no?

Gee, the only things that are really upsetting about that are:

1. the fact that the judiciary is the least democratic of our institutions, and 2. constitutionally, the judiciary has the fewest checks on it’s power.

Otherwise . . . okay. I know. I know . . . you know . . .

The constant development of unprecedented problems requires a legal system capable of fluidity and pliancy. Our society would be strait-jacketed were not the courts…

Those are not her words. She is quoting Jerome Frank.

Homosexuality has always existed. It was not a new modern development when the SCOTUS found a new never before discovered right to homosexual fornication in Lawrence v. Texas. Nothing had changed since Bowers v. Hardwick other than the composition of the court and possibly public perception. That is a perfect example of the Constitution being written on an Etch-A-Sketch™. Regardless of your position on homosexuality, abortion, eminent domain, etc. we should all be concerned with a Constitution that changes along with public perception.

The question is, should changes in public perception change the meaning of the Constitution? And if so, who should decide that public perception has actually changed — a 9 person star chamber or democracy?

I know statists who want to control my thermostat, tell me what car I drive and which Chrysler dealership I can shop at, will feel very comfortable with such decision being made by 9 political apparatiks.

Ogabe and the other demorat tools can pound sand, this is still a Republic and their “warnings” should be shoved down their own throats with a pitchfork.

Bishop on May 28, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Yup.

When the WH “warns” people not to do something, it’s time to do exactly what they are warning against; it’s a sign of their weakness.

Ogabe and the other demorat tools can pound sand, this is still a Republic and their “warnings” should be shoved down their own throats with a pitchfork.

Video: Chuck Schumer, call your office!

Top Senate aides: GOP ready to roll over for Sotomayor

The opportunity on Sotomayor

…

Look, there are not many ways to defeat a presidential nominee for the Supreme Court, especially when the President’s party has control of the Senate. But once in a while you get lucky and the President nominates somebody who even his own people will run from.
That’s what happened with Harriet Miers and I think that’s what can happen for Sonia Sotomayor. It’s not that difficult:

Judge Sotomayor has given us no reason to believe she is capable of approaching cases involving white people or men without discriminating against them. In fact, she’s given several reasons to believe that the opposite is true.

This is disgusting racial bias that even a Democrat can recognize. The only question will be whether Republicans have the stones to point it out even as the White House “warns” us not to.

THAT WAS GREAT! That is what we need more of! Wimp Republicans, grow a pair and start using these wonderful tools the folks are giving you!

echosyst on May 28, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Sometimes I wonder, if promises of security, and prominence, in their elected offices have been offered, in exchange for their (Republicans) silence, and contentedness.

So many issues, that seem to arise daily, and go unchallenged by Democrats. I can only ask ….why? This to me, seems to be the only logical conclusion, I have come to, at this point.

Schumateurism of the Day?

LibTired (KO) on May 28, 2009 at 12:57 PM

There’s not enough bandwidth…..

We have to remember that this is Schumer’s baby….and most likely he considers this (nomination) part of his own pathetic legacy.

My criteria is the same as it’s always been…

Obviously his criteria is “what ever will get me the most votes”.

How does one’s hair stand on edge?

d1carter on May 28, 2009 at 1:08 PM

Yeah – I caught that too. And what’s weird is he said it in two separate discussions, like it’s a normal statement.

My hair tends to stand on end every day I hear of another socialist power grab by this Obamanation administration.