Sen. Chuck (I’m outraged again—get me a camera) Schumer (D.-N.Y.) is one busy little bee. Problem is, he’s not busy about the Senate’s business.
On a recent day, he was seen whipping up a mob to have Karl Rove, Deputy White House Chief of Staff, hanged from the Senate’s yardarm for disclosing “classified” information that was available on a Google search at the time of the alleged disclosure.
His next outrage was directed at Michael Chertoff, Director of Homeland Security. In a Senate floor diatribe, A.K.A., “speech,” Schumer told Chertoff he ought to consider resigning for having the unmitigated gall to say we need to have national security priorities in order because of limited funds.
In the midst of mugging for cameras, how in blazes did he find time to contact a fleet of liberal law professors and gather 100 questions to ask President Bush’s yet-to-be-named nominee to the Supreme Court? And by the way, let’s all send him a big thank you for exposing another one of his big, secret war plans.
Somebody’s got to de-busy this bumblebee.
I propose the following questions for Mr. Schumer to answer in writing, all by himself, before he can ever appear before another TV camera.
1. Are you aware that the First Amendment secures your right to refrain from incessant carping?
2. New York, probably more than any place on the planet, has more shrinks per square foot who treat obsessive-compulsive-media-attention-disorder. May I give you some names and numbers so that you can cease consulting with that mad doctor from Vermont?
3. Have you considered checking a thesaurus for synonyms for “extreme” and “outrageous”?
4. Do you realize that your “outrage” de jour is extremely irksome, as in, “We don’t care”?
5. And, on a serious note, if the federal law you’re accusing Rove of violating is so important to our national security, why did you vote against it when you were a member of the U.S. House of Representatives?
6. Would you refresh my recollection regarding your outrage when Democrat Sandy Berger was caught stuffing classified documents into his pants upon leaving the National Archives?
7. Would you consider introducing a bill that requires U.S. Senators to familiarize themselves with the U.S. Constitution?
8. When judges swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, shouldn’t it be in reference to the one housed at the National Archives?
9. In keeping with concerns for reducing green house gas emissions, would you contemplate taking a vow of silence?
10. Did you not know that when you speak on a cell phone in a public place, surrounded by members of the public, it’s a safe bet the public can hear you?
11. Please use your cell phone to call the White House and ask the receptionist: “Who won the last election?" Would you please enlighten your Democratic brethren and sistern with what must be a distressing and painful revelation?
12. If you have a pocket calculator, please enter 100, subtract 45 and tell us who gets to go to Disneyland?
13. If you have a copy of the actual Constitution, please read Article III, and tell us where “maintaining the balance of the Court” is located?
14. If you can’t find it, will you cease and desist from pretending it’s there and from demanding that the President maintain it?
15. Since your favorite “mainstream” justices shot down your 100 questions during their confirmation hearings, why not compress the questions into ammo for skeet shooters, rather than suffer the rest of us to endure another one of your demands?
16. Where did you get the idea that judge is synonymous with “closet legislator”?
17. Are you aware that the Supremes aren’t back-up singers for the left wing of the Senate?
18. Other than someone who thinks the Constitution is his or her personal Etch-a-Sketch, please explain what makes an acceptable “consensus” nominee?
19. Does your obsession with adhering to stare decisis include Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. U.S. and Bowers v. Hardwick, and if not, why should a nominee pledge unqualified allegiance to the doctrine?
20. Have you considered writing a children’s book: The Incredibly Shrinking Donkey Who Kicked Its Own Behind Too Much?
Please, Sen. Schumer, chill out – for your own sake and for the sake of “promoting the general welfare.”