Schumer & Judicial Philosophy

Byron York weighs in on Charles Schumer’s strategy to use the issue of judicial philosophy to block Bush’s SCOTUS nominees.

Feeling constrained from openly voicing their
ideological objections, senators look for some small blemish in the nominee’s record that can then be exaggerated into a reason for voting against the candidate.

Back in 1987, when liberals wanted to kill the
nomination of Robert Bork, Dionne wrote, “the consensus ... held it illegitimate to block a president’s nominee to the high court solely because of his judicial philosophy. Liberals couldn’t simply oppose Bork. To block him, they had to trash him.”

Now, the combination of a strengthened conservative movement and a general public distaste for Bork-like inquisitions has made it
infinitely more difficult to trash a qualified high court nominee.

How could Schumer and his allies kill a candidate who is obviously qualified, and who cannot be reasonably portrayed as a right-wing nut?

That’s where “Judicial Nominations 2001: Should Ideology Matter?” came in. Schumer used the hearing to lay the foundation for
making ideological objections legitimate grounds for opposing nominees.

Related:
Schumer Going To War
Bush's SCOTUS Nominee
The Judges War
Sandra Day O'Connor