That stench emanating from the Democratic cloakroom in the Senate is all too familiar to close observers of the national political scene: Charles Schumer of New York has opened his mouth again.

Actually, this time, Sen. Schumer penned an op—ed piece  for the New York Daily News entitled "What I Need to Know." The piece is a long letter to President Bush, detailing what it will presumably take to keep Sen. Schumer to keep his mouth shut during the Judiciary Committee's confirmation hearings for the next justice of the Supreme Court. Short of the President nominating Lawrence Tribe or Edward Kennedy to the bench, everyone already knows Sen. Schumer is poised for 'war' over the nomination, no matter how many back muscles the President pulls in trying to massage the unnecessarily inflated egos in the Senate.

In his Daily News piece, Sen. Schumer declares that the job of the President of the United States in regard to this Supreme Court nominee is 'to bring the country together; to unite rather than divide.' He then details some of his brilliant ideas as to how the President can pull this off:

——Consult 'meaningfully' with the Senate, preferably — as Schumer suggests — at a Camp David summit or dinner at the White House.

Hey, Chuckie, if you want an invitation to Camp David or the East Room, just ask for a private tour. Sheesh.

Sen. Schumer's rationale for this summit is that, after

'two exceedingly divisive presidential elections and a season of bitter partisanship, Americans want the President and the Senate to unite rather than divide the nation.'

This is a cosmic joke, and another example of how the current crop of Democrats in the Senate and elsewhere love to blend this particular President in with their poisonous practice of politics. Who was responsible for the partisanship and rancor in 2000? Al Gore. Who has treated this President's nominees with constant delay, contempt and rudeness? The Democrats in the Senate. Who, with perfect 20/10 hindsight, have criticized the doers of deeds within the administration for not doing them differently or more effectively? Boxer, Biden, Kennedy, Byrd...you know the rest.

——Sen. Schumer suggests that, at the Judiciary hearings, the President's nominee for the Court should 'answer questions about the candidate's views about constitutional interpretation, about decided cases and about what rights he or she believes are protected in the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the ultimate guardian of our most precious rights, and appointments to that court are for a lifetime.'

The Senator from New York may want to consult with his colleague Joseph Biden. During the confirmation hearings for then—nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sen. Biden deemed that it was not necessary for nominees to present their views on various Constitutional issues because similar situations would undoubtedly come before the Court, and a nominee's prior statements might cause a conflict of interest. Nobody expects even Sen. Biden himself to abide by these words during this particular nomination, but they are instructive for many reasons.

——Sen. Schumer opines about what "kind of person" the nominee will be. He writes:

'Twenty—four years ago, when Former President Ronald Reagan faced his first Supreme Court vacancy, after a divisive election, he picked someone who was thoughtful, mainstream and pragmatic. He picked a consensus nominee — Sandra Day O'Connor. She was confirmed 99 to 0. President Bush should take a page from Reagan's book as he faces his first Supreme Court pick, also after a divisive election. He should select a mainstream, thoughtful pragmatist in the mold of O'Connor.'

Let us not forget that 'mainstream' to the Democrats in the Senate is MoveOn.org. 'Mainstream' is Michael Moore sitting next to Jimmy Carter at the convention, the NAACP accusing the President of favoring Jim Crow and endorsing hate crimes, NOW, and calling a potential nominee for the Court — the Attorney General who once upheld abortion rights in Texas as a judge — extreme.

Here is some news for Sen. Schumer. The President of the United States will nominate a justice that interprets the Constitution as it was written. He has said so numerous times, most notably during the 2000 and 2004 elections, both of which he won. The people — who no doubt the senior Senator from New York long ago forgot — are sovereign. As such, they returned Republican majorities to the House and the Senate. Unless the President is planning on nominating Saddam Hussein to the Court, please step aside and let the process go. Have some class. Republicans in the Senate vehemently disagreed with the policies of Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, yet their nominations went through without rancor or smears. Why? President Clinton had won the election. He had the won the right.

Thanks for the advice, Senator, but here is a piece of advice from a lonely voice out here in flyover country. Elections matter. You don't.

Matt May can be reached at matthewtmay@yahoo.com; his website is http://mattymay.blogspot.com