Chuckie's Dismal Failure

If there's one overriding story coming out of the Roberts' hearings it would have to be the complete and total failure of Chuckie Schumer to accomplish the goal he set for himself in the run-up to the hearings; setting a new standard for confirmation hearings and the questions that nominees would be required to answer in the future. Chuckie apparently thought that through the force of his snake-oil saleman personality, his aggressive questioning, or his reputation as a media hog, he'd be able to bully Roberts into answering questions about his positions and views that no previous nominee had agreed to answer. Instead of pitching a no-hitter, Chuckie found himself serving up batting practice fastballs to Barry Bonds. By the end of the hearings Schumer was reduced to asking Roberts what kind of movies he liked. Pretty pathetic.

At one point in the hearings Schumer revealed the real ideology of the left. He suggested that the committee not only needed to understand Roberts fitness for the position, but needed to understand the "fullness of his heart". I don't believe there is a "heart fullness test" anywhere in the Constitutional requirement of "advice and consent", and it's this kind of squishy reasoning that has given us some of the nonsense we see coming out of liberal courts on a daily basis.

The left uses their heart to see things in the Constitution that clearly aren't there, such as the right to privacy. Since it can't be found in the document, it's up to a liberal judge to "feel" that it should be there and therefore rule that it is there. The left has no hope of institutionalizing much of its agenda without the direct intervention of the courts. They could never get enough popular support to pass their agenda at the polls. That's why a guy like Roberts drives them crazy.

Robert Novak writes in a similar vein today as he discusses Chuckie's failure in this hearing:

Democratic Sens. 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 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 George W. 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 a 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.

Chuckie will probably try again, maybe even harder, with the next nominee who he will insist must be a moderate since he/she will be replacing the moderate Justice O'Connor. However, having seen the Roberts confirmation, any shrewd nominee will simply follow Roberts' (and Ginsburg's) lead and refuse to answer questions that they simply should not answer.