Democrat Platform - Alito
Notoriously anti-freedom and rabid gun-o-phobic Chuckie Schumer shows the true colors of the Democrats. Keep in mind that he's not making any new announcements here, he's stating the positions that the Democrats have, and have had, for a long time.
In his response to President Bush's nomination selection:The real question today is whether Judge Alito would use his seat on the bench, just as Rosa Parks used her seat on the bus, to change history for the better or whether he would use that seat to reverse much of what Rosa Parks and so many others fought so hard and for so long to put in place.
Translation: Alito is a racist white male. Seriously, that IS what Schumer is suggesting here. That is the first thing that Democrats do when evaluating a person -- judge them by their very appearance. That's about all that Schumer is capable of doing -- "gee, this person is a white male. Therefore, they must be racist." Nice job, Democrats, of showing your true racist colors very first.
Now, it's sad that the president felt he had to pick a nominee likely to divide America instead of choosing a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor who would unify us.
Translation: Alito is a male and Bush should have picked a female. Once again, this is how today's Democrat Party works. They very seriously believe in a quota system -- when it benefits them. Since a woman is the one retiring from the court, in the eyes of Democrats, ONLY a woman can replace her -- qualifications have absolutely nothing to do with the appointment -- sex and race are more important to Democrats than actual ability.
The president had an opportunity to nominate someone in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, a mainstream, albeit conservative, who would unite the country, not further decide us
Translation: Bush nominated someone I personally disagree with, and that's bad. The Democrats believe that the president should not be able to pick a supreme court justice. They believe that only the Democrats should pick one. This is in line with their rejection of the U.S. Constitution. Of course, they leave out the idea that when President Clinton nominated justices, the Republicans simply passed them because that's how the system works. Democrats do not like the idea that Bush gets to do anything, and their primary motivation is simply to oppose Bush -- no matter what he does.
Many of the opinions that he has written over the last 15 years cast real doubt on whether he can be a fair, mainstream, albeit conservative, judge who strives to protect the rights of all Americans, instead of a judge who will use his power to restrict those rights and legislate from the bench.
Translation: This guy hasn't performed any abortions. Seriously. Abortion is the absolute litmus test for Democrats. They simply will not give an inch on this matter. If you even hint that you don't support abortion on demand, any time, anywhere, today's national Democrat Party WILL oppose you. In the specific case that Schumer is alluding to, Alito was the lone dissenter on a case. Alito supported a law that would have a person inform the husband when a mother had an abortion. No restrictions on the actual abortion, mind you, just allowing the father of the child to know when it was going to happen. This also illustrates a big concept that the Democrats do not like. Alito's dissension was because he thought that the people of PA (where the case originated) should be allowed to govern themselves. He believed that the people of the state should be able to make laws for themselves. Schumer and the Democrats absolutely HATE that idea. They do not believe in self-government. Democrats honestly work towards an all-powerful central government led by a small group in black robes. Schumer thinks that people are not capable of making decisions on their own and that only HE (and a small group of people in Washington) should be able to make all decisions for all people. That is one of the central tenants to today's Democrat platform.
I know that the president and his supporters have suggested we need to rush a hearing and a vote by the end of this year. When there is a controversial nominee for a pivotal swing vote on the high court, the procedure should not be short- circuited, short-changed or rushed.
Translation: I'm going to delay this as long as I can. One of the strategies that the Democrats are starting to use is time. Democrats believe that they can pick up some seats in the 2006 elections in the Senate. They are hoping to delay any vote until after the 2006 elections, hoping they will have more seats or even a majority.
We will need to review these documents and perhaps take testimony regarding his time as a prosecutor and as a Reagan Justice Department official.
Translation: If he doesn't give me every piece of paper I ask for, that's going to be used as a reason to not confirm him. This is a setup showing one avenue of attack for the Democrats. They are going to do what has worked for them in the past -- request documents that they know they have no right to see, and when they are not provided, scream about hiding of information.
So there's a lot to fit in between now and Christmas, particularly when there is so much else to do on behalf of the American people before this session of Congress is complete...But even more importantly, no one should seek to rush these hearings through simply to make a point, distract from other issues of the day or avoid a thorough review of this nominee.
Translation: I'm saying I'm not going to delay, but I'm going to. Already a second mention of time. This is apparently going to be a large tactic. Look for more news with daily excuses of other work for "The American People" to be used as delays for confirmation hearings.
And knowing his judicial philosophy, knowing his ideology are going to be extremely important particularly in light of the fact that this is a swing vote.
Translation: He's not a Democrat, so I'm not supporting him. Again, this is the view of the Democrat party -- it doesn't matter how the person will actually rule on the bench -- what matters more is party affiliation. You've now seen Schumer outline their in-depth analysis of a nominee: The most important details are sex, race, and party affiliation.
He'll be on the court likely for many decades. And to rush this hearing would be a very big mistake and I think would show the American people that there's not an interest in seeing all the facts come out.
A third mention of time.
My criteria is the same as it's always been: A judge should interpret the law, not make it. There are judges at the extremes, because they are so passionate in what they believe, who seek to actually make law from the bench....They can call it what you will, but that's exactly what's happening.
Translation: I want the judges to make laws for me, not against me. This is just an outright lie. As Schumer has already outlined, in great detail, actual rulings are not important to him in selection. Schumer outlines, and he will continue to outline when he lists specific cases, that he HATES self-government. Today's Democrat Party, led by Charles Schumer, want no self-government. They want a large, powerful, central government that supports itself. They do not like freedom. They do not like allowing people to make their own decisions in regards to law. If you don't agree with that idea, don't call yourself a Democrat.
Well, you know, certainly don't delay for delay's sake but don't rush it either. We need to get the documents, especially from early on. We need to study his record. We need to meet with him. If the schedule is such that we're getting out of here in Thanksgiving, I don't think coming back for a day and voting on him in January makes too much sense. I'd say this is a more serious decision than the vote on Judge Roberts, because Sandra Day O'Connor is such a swing vote. And there should not be a procedural rush here.
Mentions #4, 5, and 6 for delaying. This now appears to be their primary strategy -- delay to delay.
I think that the initial reaction of myself and most Democrats is the president missed a real opportunity here to unify the country. And the one thing we insist on is that we really get to know who Judge Alito is, that this not be rushed. And then we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. As I said, nothing is on the table, nothing is off the table.
Seven times now he's mentioned delaying. And this crap about "unity." Keep in mind, to today's Democrat, the word "unity" means agreeing with them. Any disagreement with them is disunity. So there you have it. Schumer outlines the Democrat objections to Alito: 1. He's white.
2. He's male.
3. He's not a registered Democrat.
4. He supports the people's right to self-government. And their strategy for opposing him: 1. Delay
2. Delay
3. Delay
4. Scream about not seeing confidential documentation.
5. Delay
6. Delay
7. Delay
8. Scream about the President not trying to "unify" the country.
9. Delay
10. Delay This should be interesting to watch to see if the Republicans take them head on in the Senate, or if they sit back and let the Democrats continue to set the tone. Of the gang of 14, one (Graham-R, SC) has already said he opposes the filibuster. As usual, Michelle Malkin is tracking the blogosphere's reactions.
Comments
1
Perhaps he is suggesting that Alito "give up his seat" to a black judge. Another Clarence Thomas maybe?
Posted by: oddybobo at November 01, 2005 08:52 AM (6Gm0j)
2
I'm still holding out for the Oddy for Supreme Court nomination.
Posted by: Ogre at November 01, 2005 08:59 AM (/k+l4)
3
the Demo's are already screaming fillabuster. Is there no logic let on the left?
Posted by: Michael at November 01, 2005 09:56 AM (JUnMB)
4
You already know the answer to that question.
I say get the Constitutional Option ready. Schedule hearings for this afternoon and let it rip.
I say get the Constitutional Option ready. Schedule hearings for this afternoon and let it rip.
Posted by: Ogre at November 01, 2005 10:00 AM (/k+l4)
5
Yes Ogre...I agree with your top notch fisking of the Great Senator from NY. He does represent everything the Democrats are...good job!
Posted by: Raven at November 01, 2005 07:52 PM (D1BL0)
6
I think I'm going to keep following this line -- I bet every single day the Democrats will prove that this initial analysis was correct. Just you watch!
Posted by: Ogre at November 01, 2005 07:56 PM (7PCNv)
7
Schumer will wind up giving grief to some of his collegues - when he was named to the Federal Banch in 1990, he was confirmed UNANIMOULY (yes, that includes Ted Kennedy) AFTER they examined his writings.
I have a post on this as well - THIS is what Bush should have done instead of Miers!
I have a post on this as well - THIS is what Bush should have done instead of Miers!
Posted by: Peter Porcupine at November 01, 2005 08:33 PM (uXQ+I)
8
I'm trying to decide now if I should try and dig up any quotes from his confirmation hearing in 1990. That could be fun, but I think the Dems will self-destruct with the media without my helping!
Posted by: Ogre at November 01, 2005 08:53 PM (7PCNv)
9
High court nominations are, by definition, partisan affairs. Schumer's statements merely confirm (as if that was even necessary) which side of the issue he comes down on. He is seeking political capital by dividing America into racial, ethnic, or gender groups . . . and thus, he is exactly what he accuses Judge Alito of being. Doesn't that make Schumer a hypocrit?
The senior senator from New York is yet another example of a partisan hack who is primarily serving his own interests, rather than those of the people of the United States. And that makes him a slacker.
The senior senator from New York is yet another example of a partisan hack who is primarily serving his own interests, rather than those of the people of the United States. And that makes him a slacker.
Posted by: Mustang at November 01, 2005 09:07 PM (44d/8)
10
Oh, he IS a partisan hack -- and has always been so.
Posted by: Ogre at November 01, 2005 09:18 PM (7PCNv)
Posted by: GM Roper at November 02, 2005 05:57 AM (0CqNu)
12
Shame: When Republicans do something that Democrats disagree with.
Source: Dictionary for Democrats.
Source: Dictionary for Democrats.
Posted by: Ogre at November 02, 2005 06:52 AM (/k+l4)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.01 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.007 seconds, 20 records returned.
Page size 17 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.