Who's the Puppet, and Who Pulls the Strings?

I'm refering to Senator Schmuckie Schumer's declaration that he intends to abandon the U.S. Constitution's mandate that the Senate "advise and consent" the President on Supreme Court nominees, and just vote willy-nilly against anyone that Beezlebub - oops, sorry, George W. Bush - would dare to nominate:

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents...

Geez, get the shredder ready for the Constitution should the Democrats really regain power...but skipping for a moment Schumer's call for a beer-hall putsch, the line in the story above about the complaints of "Democrats and liberal advocacy groups" takes on added meaning when looking at this banner headline at the Washington Post:

Fewer See Balance in High Court Decisions
Growing number of Americans say court has become "too conservative" in the two years since President Bush began nominating justices.

Really? Let's get past the lead and dig in:

About half of the public thinks the Supreme Court is generally balanced in its decisions, but a growing number of Americans say the court has become "too conservative" in the two years since President Bush began nominating justices, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Nearly a third of the public -- 31 percent -- thinks the court is too far to the right, a noticeable jump since the question was last asked in July 2005.

The public seems to have noticed the shift. The percentage who said the court is "too conservative" grew from 19 percent to 31 percent in the past two years, while those who said it is "generally balanced in its decisions" declined from 55 percent to 47 percent.

So, in a nation that is about 33% hard-left anti-Bush, about 31% feel the Court is too far right. Not quite even a third, and if you include in the 3% margin of error, that number may be as low as 28% - just over a quarter of those surveyed. Look closer at the poll data, you can see that 15% of the people who answered this questionnaire aren't even registered voters. Take them out, do you even have 25%?

Given the numerous poll questions asked, why hammer away at the Supreme Court, with its questionable 31% "disapproval" (in the eyes of the WaPost) rating? Is it the editor's way of backing Schmuck Schumer and his wild-eyed dreams of subverting the Constitution? Or is the Washington Post one of the aforementioned "liberal advocacy groups" that are "increasingly complaining" about the makeup of the Supreme Court? And finally, is it possible that Schumer and The Post could be in cahoots here; with the print media actually running a news campaign on the Senator's behalf?

Looks even more suspicious when one realizes the article doesn't even comment on Bush's 33% approval rating, or get around to mentioning the Democratic Congress' new low point in disapproval ratings, a whopping 60%. Guess the WaPost doesn't want their readers distracted from their anti-constitutional jihad...