Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Supreme Court, All Right or All Wrong? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (917)	9/23/2005 9:25:18 AM
From: JDN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3029

Just another Special interest controlled Senator. Whats new? jdn

To: sandintoes who wrote (917)	9/23/2005 9:45:08 AM
From: paret	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3029

NYP: BEATING CHUCK - W's next court pick, by John Podhoretz New York Post ^ \| September 23, 2005 \| John Podhoretz ...Schumer argued yesterday "being brilliant and accomplished" didn't make Roberts qualified. Why? Because "there are many who would use their considerable talents and legal acumen to set America back. So, while legal brilliance is to be considered, it is never dispositive.... Roberts is clearly brilliant and his demeanor suggests he well might not be an ideologue. But he did not make the case strongly enough to bet the whole house." This is what a bad argument looks like — pressing an ideological assault against someone by claiming that person could be an "ideologue." The refusal of Schumer and four other Democrats to vote for Roberts indicates that no Bush nominee will ever be acceptable to them. Schumer sought to answer that charge yesterday by claiming that he would accept "someone who answers questions fully and who makes his or her record fully available"— a preposterous notion in light of the fact that the Senate was provided with more internal documentation on Roberts than any other court nominee in history— and "someone who gives us a significant level of assurance with some answers and a record that he or she is not an ideologue." But Schumer has defined "ideologue" to mean, in effect, anyone with conservative judicial views — so his statement self-destructs like the tape recording at the start of "Mission: Impossible." It would be a mission impossible to attempt to satisfy the senior senator from New York, and President Bush should not and need not try. Bush can put the final nail in this unprecedented attempt to ideologize the confirmation process for the Supreme Court in the coming weeks. How? By nominating another unapologetic conservative to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court— indeed, even someone with views that might be a tad more controversial than Roberts's.... (Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...