The guys at Verum Serum do another great job of raiding the memory banks to put a Democrat on the spot, with a big assist from Gateway Pundit.  This time, it’s Senator Chuck Schumer, seen over the years insisting that he believes in judicial restraint.  Really.  No kidding.  Well, maybe:

Why all of Schumer’s interest in judicial restraint? At the time, Schumer wanted to keep the Bush administration from moving the appellate court to the right, and framed these comments in the context of the Miguel Estrada nomination, among others. That’s why he happily agreed with C-SPAN’s “very conservative” callers on judicial activism, which he apparently defines as an inappropriately low level of respect for stare decisis.

Of course, that makes this clip a little more relevant to Schumer’s main objection:

These quotes can be found on Heritage’s blog site:

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, with the able assistance of the lawyers, constantly overhauling the law and adapting it to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions; although changes cannot be made lightly, yet law must be more or less impermanent, experimental and therefore not nicely calculable. Much of the uncertainty of law is not an unfortunate accident: it is of immense social value.

Er, doesn’t the “fluidity” and the endorsement of courts “overhauling” the law speak directly to Schumer’s concern on judicial activism?  Schumer and his pals practically demanded a religious devotion to stare decisis from John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who never wrote anything like this in their careers.  Will Schumer & Co demand that Sotomayor disavow these sentiments?  Will they even bother asking for an explanation of them?

Let’s hope Jeff Sessions is all over this; it’s good to see Orrin Hatch, one of the gentlemen of the upper chamber, already exposing these statements.