September 19, 2005
THE ROBERTS STANDARD:
Schumer is no match for Roberts (ROBERT NOVAK, September 19, 2005, Chicago Sun-Times)
Democratic Senators Charles Schumer of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California had tried to hide their frustration while questioning Judge John G. Roberts Jr. for the second time last week. But once the confirmation hearing ended, they betrayed their emotions in the confines of a Russell Senate Office Building elevator, oblivious to who was overhearing them. The two senators bitterly complained that Roberts simply was not answering their questions.Feinstein sounded like a sympathetic sidekick, but this was more serious for Schumer -- a crushing defeat in his campaign to establish a new standard for confirmation of Supreme Court nominees. Ever since President Bush's election, Schumer has been planning how to force nominees to take broad policy positions. In his elevator conversation with Feinstein, Schumer grumbled that Roberts was getting away with incorrectly claiming he was following precedent set by liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her confirmation hearing (though in private conversation last week, Ginsburg disagreed with Schumer).
Schumer may be the Senate Judiciary Committee's best lawyer, but Roberts is an even better one. "If this were a fight, the referee would have stopped it," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told me in assessing the Schumer vs. Roberts confrontation. Beyond their legal duel, the outcome should set a new standard for Supreme Court confirmations. It is unlikely any future nominee can be drawn into an inquest of their policy positions.
If Mr. Schumer, [regarded as one of the biggest blowhards in the Senate], is really the sharpest knife in their drawer it's no wonder they ended up with it stuck in their own backs. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 19, 2005 7:28 AM
With the stiff competition of Washington Patty and California Babs? He could only show in that race.
Posted by: ed at September 19, 2005 10:47 AMAs much as this is supposedly about Schumer's "planning how to force nominees to take broad policy positions," it's also about Chuckie's ego and raging desire to not be considered New York State's "junior" senior senator to one Hillary Rodham Clinton, who in normal situations sucks up most of the media oxygen in the city.
For someone who is considered the most dangerous Senator to be standing in front of if there's a camera positioned in back of you, this is an intolerable situation, and the Roberts hearing was supposed to be a chance for Schumer to strut his stuff, carve out his own glory and earn kudos from the mostly sympathetic media (and if Hillary wanted to, she could really twist the knife in to Chuckie by supporing Roberts' nomination and explaining hwo impressive he was at the hearings).
Posted by: John at September 19, 2005 10:54 AMWouldn't it be shorter and simpler just to list the smartest Senators?
Posted by: AC at September 19, 2005 11:08 AM "smartest Senators" : a phrase that makes about as much sense as "sharpest spoon", and about as useful.
Here's an amusing article about Senator">http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=2713">Senator Schumer by Thomas Lifson over at the American Thinker.
Posted by: erp at September 19, 2005 12:14 PMPut up or shut up. Where was Schumer voted one of the "dumbest senators"?
Posted by: Rick Perlstein at September 19, 2005 12:29 PMRick, in the court of public opinion.
Read Lifson's article, it explains a lot about Schumer's odd behavior.
Posted by: at September 19, 2005 12:38 PMAll of our smartest Senators are dead.
Posted by: HT at September 19, 2005 12:41 PMHT, our smartest Senators are not Senators.
Posted by: pchuck at September 19, 2005 12:57 PMFor Republicans to be calling Democratic Senators "dumb" when the ranks of their own include Tom Coburn reminds me of my wood fire camping pot hurling imprecations about cleanliness at the griddle.
Cohen isn't even smart enough to fire a staffer who says in an interview, "Tom doesn't 'get' this legal stuff".
Posted by: Anandakos at September 19, 2005 1:10 PMSorry, "Coburn isn't...".
Posted by: Anandakos at September 19, 2005 1:11 PMCoburn is a physician. You can count the folks in the Senate who could get through medical school on one hand.
Posted by: oj at September 19, 2005 1:13 PMAnandakos, for the most part of a dumb Republican senator is less dangerous than a dumb Democrat senator.
Posted by: pchuck at September 19, 2005 1:14 PMRick:
It looks like he didn't manage to edge Santorum, Boxer or Murray in '04, instead ranking among the showboats.
Posted by: oj at September 19, 2005 1:29 PM"A crowded field—more than a third of the Senate got votes." And Sheets Byrd got #2 under "Brainest", behind Frist
I guess these things happen when you can only work with less than half of the bell curve.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at September 19, 2005 1:42 PMSchumer must be a genius. He's managed to put himself at the top of the NRA's most wanted list.
Posted by: Lou Gots at September 19, 2005 3:31 PMOJ,
I don't agree. You can count the Senators who DID make it through medical school on one hand; that's certainly true. But that's not a test who who COULD have done so. Most Senators are lawyers, and that makes plain-as-the-nose-on-ones-face sense: the Senate is engaged in making laws, not delivering babies. It's not so much a correlation of ability as of interest.
Posted by: Anandakos at September 20, 2005 2:17 PMVery few lawyers could get through med school. Most stink at math and science, hence we get degrees in history and other "soft" social sciences.
It is hard to do very well at most law schools but very easy to get through law school. How many Senators were in the top 5% of their law school classes?
Posted by: Bob at September 20, 2005 3:49 PManandakos:
People become lawyers because they're too stupid to be doctors.
Posted by: oj at September 20, 2005 6:23 PMOJ:
Schumer got a 1600 on his SATs...he was smart enough to cheat.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at September 20, 2005 8:56 PM