Asked Connie over at Hot Air. It seems that Specter is angry with U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito. Why you ask?From the mind that brought us “super-duper precedents“:
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) plans to review the Senate testimony of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito to determine if their reversal of several long-standing opinions conflicts with promises they made to senators to win confirmation:
“There are things he has said, and I want to see how well he has complied with it,” Specter said, singling out Roberts.
The Specter inquiry poses a potential political problem for the GOP and future nominees because Democrats are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court moved quicker and more dramatically than advertised to overturn or chip away at prior decisions:
The idea for a review came to Specter when he said he ran into Justice Stephen G. Breyer at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado.Breyer, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, drew attention last month for suggesting that Roberts and the conservative majority were flouting stare decisis, the legal doctrine that, for the sake of stability, courts should generally leave past decisions undisturbed.
I think Connie nailed it…
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Random Yak, guerrilla radio, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog’s Weblog, Jeanette’s Celebrity Corner, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Pet Haven, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Pirate’s Cove, Nuke’s news and views, Planck’s Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Azamatteroprinciple – A new blog dedicated to fighting pork barrel spending, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Senate imperial? Just say, “imperial feddle gummint” and be done with it. Not competent empire, but doing its best to convert citizens into subjects, rights into licenses, and stare decisis (and other honored traditions” such as… pork, “political compromise” and the RIGHT, RIGHT, I tell you! of elected officials to flat out ignore ALL campaign promises once they are in office… unless the electorate can come up with enough bribes to keep them bought) into a bone in the republic’s throat, strangling the very life from it.
If Arlen Specter got hit by a magic bullet, I wouldn’t be surprised. He’s such an imperialistic jerk.
Gee, I saw “13″ comments in this topic and I thought I might find some discussion… Nope, just ‘trackbacks’ polluting the comments with irrelevant garbage.
Peejz, you think is this good for the site.. why?
Sen Schumer, Imperal guard of all liberalism refuses to confirm any Bush judges. Now, that is not in the Constitution. Schumer should be removed for violating his oath of office.
15- Wow, cool. An actual comment, not spam from another blog.
Nothing in the Constitution says senators have to confirm (rubber stamp) a president’s nominees.
The Constitution calls for the President to appoint judges with the “advice and consent” of the Senate. The advice and consent of the Senate is to insure that the individuals nominated are qualified to hold the position, not that they hold certain liberal attitudes about judicial activism. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is NOT as qualified as Janice Rogers Brown yet she was appointed to the Supreme Court because she was qualified and the Republicans followed the Constitutional requirement to insure that the nominee was qualified and nothing else. The Democrats even moved to prevent Janice Rogers Brown from getting an up or down vote despite her qualifications. Which party is acting in accordance with the Constitution? The party that confirms a nominee based on qualifications or the party that blocks a confirmation vote on a nominee based solely on the nominee’s judicial philosophy? The Democrats in Congress are repeatedly and continually violating the intent of the founding fathers if not the Constitution itself. The violate their oathes to protect and defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic because they are the domestic enemies.
17- “consent” means they must approve. If you believe a nomination is supposed to result in a rubber-stamp by congress, then obviously you don’t understand the process.
Sorry, as much as the ‘right’ wants a fascist state, they have not yet succeeded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRI4lqDqvRU
Toasted Tofu, you entirely missed FAO’s point. It apparently went right over your head…
Third world monkeys, do third world act’s, its normal.
the U.S. Supreme Court is full of little monkeys doing the dance of the little people, you will see more as time moves on into the night of a nation after all just start calling it the FORMER U.S.A.
18, ToFu, get your head out of…
Schumer won’t even bring up Bush nominees for hearings. THAT IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION, you putz!
21- Very well said FAO!