A veritable shit-storm is brewing on the left, and it could all come to a head if Justice Stevens decides to keel over. Chuckie Schumer and the other idiots that make up the circus known as the Senate Judiciary Committee are now threatening to boycott any Bush appointee to the Supreme Court, citing the constructionist decisions made by the current court as ultraconservative. I suppose he's right if you consider the Constitution on the far-right. Michelle Malkin on the New York idiot:

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito “duped” the U.S. Senate into confirming them, a top Democratic lawmaker charged on Friday, days after a key Republican questioned if they had lived up to their promises.

Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, a member of the Judiciary Committee that held hearings on the two, said they staked out moderate positions in congressional testimony but became part of a conservative bloc that issued restrictive rulings on issues from free speech to civil rights.

Schumer, in a speech to the American Constitution Society, talked about the confirmation of Roberts and Alito in 2005 and 2006, respectively.

“Were we duped?” he asked.

“Were we too easily impressed by the charm of nominee Roberts and the erudition of nominee Alito?” Schumer asked. “Did we mistakenly vote our hopes when our fears were more than justified by the ultraconservative records of these two men?”

“Yes,” he said

These two men were too of the most highly qualified legal scholars in the country, not only worthy of their appointments but worthy of our admiration. Schumer on the other hand is just an idiot Senator from New York. Speaking of New York, the opinion section of The Slime has an idea for the court:

WHEN a majority of Supreme Court justices adopt a manifestly ideological agenda, it plunges the court into the vortex of American politics. If the Roberts court has entered voluntarily what Justice Felix Frankfurter once called the “political thicket,” it may require a political solution to set it straight.

The framers of the Constitution did not envisage the Supreme Court as arbiter of all national issues. As Chief Justice John Marshall made clear in Marbury v. Madison, the court’s authority extends only to legal issues.

When the court overreaches, the Constitution provides checks and balances. In 1805, after persistent political activity by Justice Samuel Chase, Congress responded with its power of impeachment. Chase was acquitted, but never again did he step across the line to mingle law and politics. After the Civil War, when a Republican Congress feared the court might tamper with Reconstruction in the South, it removed those questions from the court’s appellate jurisdiction.

But the method most frequently employed to bring the court to heel has been increasing or decreasing its membership. The size of the Supreme Court is not fixed by the Constitution. It is determined by Congress.

Ahh, there's a strategy that Democrats would be proud of, a good old-fashioned court stacking. Yes, there's historic precedent, but not all of it is good precedent. Do we really want to rehash the idiocy of Roosevelt's plan? If the numbers aren't in your favor, move the goal post. Nice plan.