RUSH: Here from last night, Senator Schumer in his press conference here, with Senator Leahy. This is the bite where Schumer is fearful of the kind of law that Judge Roberts will be able to “make.”
SCHUMER: I hope Judge Roberts, understanding how important this nomination is, particularly when replacing a swing vote on the court will decide to answer questions about his views. Now that he is nominated for a position where he can overturn precedent and make law, it’s even more important that he fully answers a broad range of questions. I hope, for the sake of the country, that Judge Roberts understands this and opens questions — sorry, and answers questions openly, honestly and thoroughly.
RUSH: Yeah you’re going to give him the questions in an envelope before he shows up and hope he “opens” them honestly. So, here we have this reference, once again, to the “swing vote.” See, Chuck Schumer wants you to believe that the Supreme Court is made up of four conservatives and four liberals, and then a fifth swing vote who is actually a liberal but we don’t call him that — and Justice O’Connor was the swing vote always voting with the libs. Well, actually, she didn’t always vote with the libs. In the last big case, the Kelo case, she voted on the right side of that issue. But, so, there is no such thing as a “swing vote.” That is simply analysts looking at the way the court operates. But this whole notion that there is a swing vote and you have to replace the swing vote with a swing vote, “Go ahead and replace your conservative with a conservative and liberal with a lib liberal,” when it comes to a swing vote? Let’s go back to the history of the court and find all of the swing votes on the court. It is absurd. Yet, Senator Schumer is going to attempt to make as many people as possible believe that.
Grab cut 7 as well. This is Schumer’s comments just before the ones you just heard, last night, after the president nominated Judge Roberts.
SCHUMER: The burden is on a nominee to the Supreme Court to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove that he is unworthy.
SCHUMER: I voted against Judge Roberts for the DC Court of Appeals because he didn’t answer questions fully and openly when he appeared before the committee. For instance, when I asked him a question that others have answered, to identify three Supreme Court cases of which he was critical, he refused. But now, it’s a whole new ballgame. For those of us who voted against him, for those of us who voted for him — and for Judge Roberts.
RUSH: So, you might have heard that he was approved by unanimous consent. He was. I think there were two or three Democrats voted against him on the committee, but he got out of committee. But they didn’t have the guts to vote against him on the floor, because, here’s why: You don’t want the vote to look like 80-20. You don’t want the vote to look like 85-15. You know 95-5 is ok. You can do that, but 85-20, or 85-15, 80-20, not worth that. So they didn’t vote. Just used unanimous consent and sailed him on to the court. So there was no actual floor vote; they just agreed by unanimous consent. Sort of like the way the Senate did in the Schiavo case at first. They didn’t have the guts to go vote on it so just used unanimous concept and reserve their rights, “Oh, we never voted on this,” and come back, those who disagreed with what was happening, to say so at that time.
<*ICON*> <font color=”CC0000″><b>EIB Essential Stack of Stuff …</b></font>
<a target=new href=”//home/eibessential/judicial_activism.member.html”>(The Battle for the Judiciary)</a>