Schumer, Leahy Want It Both Ways

We all know that politicians have an inborn character trait that allows them to say almost anything while believing some, all or none of their own words. Sen. Schumer has been extremely “gifted” in this foreign language called political speech.

Lately he and Leahy have been calling for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts to consider Roe v. Wade to be something called stare decisis or “settled law.” Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council breaks it down like this:

The 1986 Supreme Court case upholding state sodomy laws, Bowers v. Hardwick, was “settled law” until the 2003 Supreme Court roster, in Lawrence v. Texas, found a constitutional right to sodomy. The 1857 Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sanford decided that all African Americans are property and thus not citizens. Would Senators Leahy and Schumer, if they lived in the 1850′s, honestly argue that Dred Scott was “settled law”? Those who believe in a constantly evolving Constitution might be the very worst people to ask if the law is actually settled on anything. By treating court opinions as though they are permanent law, we become unwitting abettors in ceding legislative powers to judicial officials. More importantly, the questioning of judicial nominees on topics that are very likely to reappear before them if confirmed is unconscionable.

It’s merely a parlor trick the Democrats are using, hoping to fool those who don’t want to dig a little into another foreign language—lawyer-speak.