Patrick Leahy warns of court-packing
- Posted by MacStansbury on January 24th, 2006 filed in John, Moonbats, Politics, SCOTUS
My political ranting is really taking a sharp turn up in the past couple of weeks, for some reason. Maybe it’s because of the constant drones from the out-of-power Democrats. Case in point: Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy, Ranking Member, Committee On The Judiciary, The Alito Nomination, The Supreme Court, And Presidential Power. Such an excellent title, long and boring, rambling and dull. Just like Leahy!
But, I was listening to a certain radio station with a…heh heh…certain talk show host…we won’t rush to conclusions about who it was…but he pointed me to this “Statement” in which this unbelievable phrase didn’t get edited out:
No President should be allowed to pack the courts, and especially the Supreme Court, with nominees selected to enshrine presidential claims of government power. Our system was designed to ensure a balance and to protect against overreaching by any branch. The checks and balances that should be provided by the courts, Congress and the Constitution are too important to be sacrificed to such an agenda. The Senate stood up to President Roosevelt when he proposed a court-packing scheme. And today, the Senate should not be a rubber stamp to this President’s effort to move the law dramatically to the right and to give him unfettered leeway. I will not lend my support to an effort by this President to move the Supreme Court and the law radically to the right and to remove the final check within our democracy.
Radically to the right? You mean, like the Christians? Because, as we all know, Judge Alito is going to come in and use his magical judging powers to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and creating a law that no abortions can happen, ever. You know, because all the other 8 Supreme Court justices will be powerless to stop Alito’s evil whims. CHECKS AND BALANCES ARE OVER!!!!! MWAHAHAHHAHAAAA!!!!
And, to answer your question, yes, two appointees is what you need to “pack the court.” I mean, not like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. That wasn’t packing the court at all. Nor was it moving the court “radically to the left.” You have your history down to a T, Mr. Leahy.
In fact, the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 was adding people to the SCOTUS, not changing the flavor, as it was obviously done in the Clinton administration. Those two judges, who are described as liberal, only changed the flavor of the court. They did not control anything, any more than adding two conservative judges would. On top of that, they are human beings, who have their own ideas. They are not party line robots, regardless of what people want you to believe.
No, Leaky, just keep on saying stuff like this. Do your delay tactic to keep that applause line out of President Bush’s State of the Union address. It’s one line in a speech, and Judge Alito got out of committee this morning, and he’ll be approved when he comes before the full Sentate.
And there’s nothing you can do about it.
William Teach says:
Dems live in their own little worlds, in which elections do not matter. It’s OK for them to get an ultra, ultra, left wing judge like Ruth G on the court, but God forbid that a duly elected RW President nominate someone who is Conservative. Somehow, to them, it is unConstitutional. And unseemly. And outrageous. Keep inserting those types of words (Here)
They have nothing else to look forward too. Despite a difficult year for the GOP, and some bloggers predictions, the GOP is not going to lose control of the House, we will not lose lots of seats in the Senate, and Bush is not going to be impeached. I predict that everything will stay pretty much status quo, except that we will gain a few House seats.
Come 2008, the Dems are in even worse shape, cause they will not have Bush to run against. I predict it will be McCain. Then what will the dems do?
Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator says:
Senate Panel’s Vote Goes Alito’s Way
Voting along straight party lines, the Senate Judiciary Committee sends Judge Samuel Alito’s Supreme
Mile 66 says:
“No President should be allowed to pack the courts, and especially the Supreme Court,…” Unless that President is Democrat and the Judges or Justices are openly Liberals, since liberalism and socialism represent the highest stages of human cultural and moral development” :roll:
That’s what these Libtards really believe, and they would prove it by asking you to look the European example (Paris burning?), Canada (Steve Harper, anyone?) or Washington DC (Marion Barry, :lol:)
Liberalism could be easily defined with any combination of the following:
Institutionalized double standards
Do as I say and not as I do
I refuse to be held responsible and accountable for any of my actions/inactions
Blame Bush/Halliburton/Wal-Mart/Gunmakers/Your-name-here.
Van Helsing says:
Either Leahy is an idiot or he thinks we’re idiots — or both. As you point out, packing the court like Roosevelt got his way by threatening to do involves loading it up with more than nine justices. It has absolutely nothing to do with a conservative president appointing conservative judges. What a demagogue.
THE GALVIN OPINION says:
BILL NELSON, JUDGE ALITO AND EMINENT DOMAIN
Florida Sen. Bill Nelson said he’s worried about Alito when it comes to eminent domain. But, it was the liberal judges who constituted the majority in Kelo v. New London.
Common Folk Using Common Sense says:
Alito Passes Judiciary Committee
The Judiciary Committee favorably recommended Samuel Alito’s Supreme Court nomination to the full Senate. But watch closely for the hypocrisy and petty partisanship.
…