Schumer in 2007: Don't confirm any Bush Supreme Court nominee

[yeoman6987]

Sen. Chuck Schumer said in July 2007 that no George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court should be approved, except in extraordinary circumstances, 19 months before a new president was set to be inaugurated.

"We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances," Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in prepared remarks to the American Constitution Society, a liberal legal organization.

Schumer cited ideological reasons for the delay.

"They must prove by actions, not words, that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not," Schumer said at the time.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-in-2007-dont-confirm-any-bush-supreme-court-nominee/article/2583283



Why oh why did he give Republicans any reason to stop Supreme Court Nominations? This is not good.

[Orrex]

1. Regardless, Chuck & Mitch (Chitch? Muck?) don't get to freestyle the Constitution

[yeoman6987]

54. That's true.

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

79. They're not going freestyle, but Obama should not have taken recess appointments off the table

This is a poker game and we shouldn't unilaterally disarm.

[NobodyHere]

86. I doubt the senate would take any official recesses if recess appointments were on the table

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

92. They are currently in a recess

[tularetom]

2. Umm, because he's a buffoon?

That'd be my guess.

[blm]

3. Figures you would post this. In context he said that Bush's nominee would have to show that they

hold views that are not out of step with the mainstream or settled law. LIKE ON REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS.

Roberts and Alito were far right, pro-fascist nominees willing to lie their asses off during confirmation hearings. Not that any Republican would have noticed or cared.

Schumer was finally drawing a line on FAR RIGHT FASCISTS being nominated by Bush, not mainstream nominees.

[Arugula Latte]

8. Yeah, really. The OP is soooo concerned.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

48. Yup

The old "devils advocate" at it again

[laundry_queen]

60. Definitely a pattern. nt

[hfojvt]

55. and your point is?

That it is okay for Schumer, but Republicans cannot, in good conscience, draw the line on far left appointees even ones that are replacing a far right person?

We can do it, but if they suggest the same thing it only proves they are evil?

[blm]

62. That's not what GOP's are saying, is it? They are saying NO - period. No ifs or buts about it. The

'both sides' tact is utter BS.

[hfojvt]

63. so you are going to pretend you don't know what they mean?

You think if Obama nominated Orrin Hatch that they would fillibuster?

They are saying no based on the fairly certain knowledge that Obama will never appoint somebody they find acceptable. Because they want an Orrin Hatch or another Roberts or Scalia or Alito.

When you see both sides clearly doing it, well, I think a person should be intellectually honest about it.

[blm]

69. Both sides are NOT clearly doing it. Schumer is talking about the DISHONEST approach

Republicans use when they claim something is settled law and then get seated and proceed to prove they were BSing all along.

Dems DO seat moderate judges - it's today's GOP that refuses to do it.

Your 'both sides clearly doing it' is a load of horsepoo.

[hfojvt]

70. refuse to see it, then?

Their six inches is clearly substantially different from our half a foot. Anybody can see that. Liberal judges have never changed any settled laws from the bench.

[GeorgeGist]

72. Schumer is NOT the majority leader of the Senate ...

and hopefully never will be.

[blm]

85. You peddle baloney. Schumer also said extraordinary circumstances - a death would qualify.

Your both sides tactic is utter horsepoo.

[treestar]

80. Robert has not turned out to be so bad

This court upheld the ACA and it also found gay marriage to be required under the constitution. So people saying it is now 4-4 are not so right. That's the good side of the lifetime appointment - they can do what that law says without repercussions from the people who appointed them.

[Reter]

82. Roberts saved Obamacare

The far-right now thinks he's poison.

[DCBob]

4. However, no nominee was actually blocked.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

11. Precisely! Obama has every right to appoint whomever the fuck he wants!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[Yo_Mama]

50. He does, but the Senate has every right to refuse to confirm if they object.

President Obama should nominate, and the Senate should consider the nominee, but there is no constitutional obligation for the Senate to accept whatever candidate the President nominates.

Historically, about one in five have not made it through the process.

I am seeing a lot of hypocrisy on this issue. It's a split power under the Constitution.

Now, if President Obama nominates a sitting appeals court judge, he has a much better chance of getting the confirmation.

[razorman]

59. Actually, none of this surprises me. Hypocrisy abounds.

Unfortunately, it occurs on both sides in these instances. The support for delaying(or blocking) a particular president's nominee completely depends on whether one is a supporter or opponent of that president. It is the same with the filibuster. To the congressional minority, the filibuster is sacred. To the majority, it is constantly being abused. Then, the views switch when congress changes hands again. It is all a game, and it is predictable.

[brush]

77. I'd like to see the repugs try to reject his nomination if it's a Latino/Latina candidate

If they don't, Latinos will flock to the polls in November and we will surely win the election for president.

The president has tremendous leverage now and the repugs know it, despite all their bluster about there will be no confirmation.

[razorman]

78. Perhaps. But I'm not so sure. Since the Latin threshold has been passed

for SCOTUS membership, I do not think it will be that much of a factor. That's also assuming that there is a monolithic Hispanic voting bloc, which is not the case. I think the R's will expect such a move, anyway. They do not think he will nominate a white male under any circumstances. Right now, I believe they are more afraid of their base abandoning them if they go along with the president, regardless of who he nominates. Besides, the public has a short memory. By November, much of the excitement about this change will have faded. For now, all they have to do is stall.

[brush]

89. What Latin threshold?

There's no white male threshold so there's no Latin threshold.

And IMO, this is going to rage on for quite a while. It's not two week story.

The White House, Harry Reid and the rest of the dems will see to that because Citizens United, voting rights laws, gun regulation laws/2nd Amendment, and the presidency are at stake.

It's already being dubbed the greatest Constitutional crisis since Florida 2000.

[razorman]

90. What I meant was that we already have the first Latin Justice

on the court. The Republicans will not be as afraid to oppose the second one.

[brush]

91. Okay, that still doesn't negate the resentment that Latino Americans will . . .

feel though if the repugs refuse to rule on a nomination of a Latino/a candidate and, like I said before, flock to the polls to make sure there won't be repug president to make the next nomination.

The repugs are already in big trouble with the Latino electorate with Trump's pronouncements and their failure to move on immigration reform so this is the last thing they need.

Obama is going to definitely force the issue. He's already said he's preparing to nominate someone, despite the repugs entirely unconstitutional vows to not move on his nomination.

[Yo_Mama]

84. The key to sanity is considering one's own preference when power is reversed.

The division of powers between the Legislative and the Executive is one of the tools the Constitution uses to preserve a representational democracy.

The Senate's rules on filibusters and so forth are designed to not let a small party majority produce a result that is highly unfavorable to the minority. Since majority/minority status naturally changes over time, it's generally best to let the process work when it is unfavorable to the party in ascendancy at the moment.

I think people get caught up in the moment. It's way better overall to have consensus candidates.

[razorman]

88. I like that. Hadn't heard it put that way before.

Our process isn't perfect, but I can't think of a better one. Other than to let me run things, course.

[former9thward]

67. There was no vacancy.

Schumer was referring to Stevens seat but Stevens did not retire until Obama took office.

[kcr]

68. It's actually not the same thing. What a shock, right?

Thanks for pointing this out to the both-sides-do-it crowd, much good that it will do.

[leveymg]

5. Do a recess appointment.

[onenote]

9. Need a recess for that.

And we're not in one that triggers the recess appointment clause (despite what some commentators seem to believe) and we're not going to be in one any time while Obama is President.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

13. Sounds good to me! ... Famous African American Women for $600 Alex...

ding ding ding... a Daily Double!!... This person had the distinction of being the first African American woman appointed to the Supreme Court... Who is Loretta Lynch?... Correct!!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
http:///Uu i.imgur.com BAFyA.jpg

[Reter]

83. They only last until next session

By that time, there will be a new president anyway.

[Xipe Totec]

6. Were there any SCOTUS Nominations by GWB rejected after July 2007?

Schumer can say what he wants, but there were no SCOTUS vacancies to fill between July 2007 and the end of GWB's term in office.

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. Oh, you

Again?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

10. This is one way

in which both parties really are the same; they both want SC justices who will respect precedents with which they agree, and overturn precedents with which they disagree.

Republicans want to ignore precedent and overturn Roe v. Wade, and Democrats want to ignore precedent and overturn DC v. Heller.

[WillowTree]

41. STOP BEING REASONABLE AND LOGICAL!!

It seems to ruin the fun for too many people around here.

If you want to start a real firestorm, try mentioning the fact that both parties are guilty of gerrymandering congressional districts when it suits their purposes. But I warn you, get out of the way 'cause DUers really don't want to believe that, either.

[Yo_Mama]

51. Really, and then we also need sane judges who will respect the law, so the best result

is for the extremely partisan in both parties to be acutely disappointed.

Which, I note, they usually are.

[Kingofalldems]

12. Looks like concern trolling from here.

And a right wing source.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

14. Seriously!

[Rex]

75. Some here pine for Reagan and can barely contain themselves now that his last crappy

puppet has kicked the bucket. SSDY.

[TipTok]

93. I often see you complaining about sourcing...

... but rarely pointing out the parts that are factually untrue.

[Kingofalldems]

94. And another shows up.

Read post #15

False premise.

Also waiting for the OP to defend his position. Apparently he chooses not to.


Good try though.

[Marr]

15. Two things.

First, Schumer is an ass.

Second, your implication that his expressed sentiment was the same as that of GOP leaders today is completely wrecked right in your own post. He didn't say they should just reject all nominees. He said a Bush nominee should prove they're at least somewhat in the mainstream and not a radical right-winger.

I don't think many are saying Obama should be able to get Noam Chomsky past confirmation hearings. But he should certainly be able to get a mainstream, left of center nominee approved. That's a big part of what the office is all about.

[Kingofalldems]

16. Exactly. The post has a false premise.

[blm]

36. Yep! Blatantly dishonest, imo.

Been down this path more than a few times with the 'concern' shown.

[Kingofalldems]

37. Also it's a hit and run post. Would love for OP to defend his position.

[Kingofalldems]

17. The right wing seems all upset. What a shame, eh?

[LittleBlue]

18. I don't get the drama over this

It's obvious they wouldn't confirm a USSC justice 11 months before a new president is sworn in.

Who needs Republicans to agree? Let's just win the presidency and make this irrelevant. With the Republican field of candidates, I'd say we have to be the favorites right now.

[Kingofalldems]

19. Nope. The President will do his job and nominate..

[SickOfTheOnePct]

20. And the Senate will do their job

as they see it, and reject his nominee.

[Kingofalldems]

22. Bullshit, what they are screaming about is not their job.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

25. It's certainly their job to confirm or reject SCOTUS appointments n/t

[Kingofalldems]

27. Reject before nomination? Don't think so.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

31. Think so

They can certainly go in with the attitude that they aren't going to confirm anyone, no matter the qualifications.

[davidn3600]

44. Where in the Constitution does it say they have to be fair to the nominee?

The Senate can reject can reject the nominee for any reason they want. There is nothing outlined in the Constitution nor any Senate rules that dictate who is even qualified for the court.

[Kingofalldems]

45. So we aren't allowed to discuss it?

Don't see your point.

[LittleBlue]

23. He will, but it won't go anywhere unless he nominates someone who leans conservative

A "moderate" is maybe, maybe the only thing that will tempt Republicans to confirm a justice before 2017.

The rest is all posturing.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

21. Exactly

I'm not getting the outrage over this. Were the situation reversed, we would be saying the same thing, i.e., no nominees are getting through, don't even bother.

[Kingofalldems]

26. Anthony Kennedy.

.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

30. That's laughable

Are you seriously saying that the political climate in 1988 was as deeply polarized as it is now?

If the situation were reversed right now, the Democrats would be saying the exact same thing, just as Schumer did in 2007.

[Kingofalldems]

33. Democrats don't act like far right wing republicans.

If you don't realize and acknowledge that, this conversation is going nowhere.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

34. When it comes to SCOTUS

Democrats act exactly like Republicans.

Both sides, Democrats and Republicans, want justices who will respect precedents with which they agree, and overturn precedents with which they disagree.

[LanternWaste]

38. Though I keep reading that allegation, I see no consistent evidence supporting it.

"the Democrats would be saying the exact same thing..."

Though I keep reading that allegation, I see no consistent evidence supporting it.

[blm]

39. Except, it is NOT what was said, is it? Why pretend both sides would do the same?

Unless one is INVESTED in that image.

[WillowTree]

49. Much as I try not to answer a question with another question.......

.......can you honestly say you think that if the Alito appointment had come less than a year before W's second term was going to end the Democrats in the majority in the Senate at that time would have approved him? Really?

[Marr]

24. I agree with you. But there's a good reason for the outrage.

Their recalcitrance here can make the elections more punishing for them. If they really want to lose the Congress over this as well as the White House, fine by me. That would be a much better environment in which to nominate a new justice anyway.

[HassleCat]

28. Because our party is more like their party than we care to admit. (eom)

[underpants]

29. Let's see ... given the rest of the FIASCO....

Yeah. Especially since W, on his own by all accounts, thought the nice lady down the hall was a good idea.

[Hugin]

32. "except in extraordinary circumstances"

Well, I'd think the current situation qualifies for Shumer's exception.

[spanone]

35. one guy as opposed to their whole party....pale comparison

[LanternWaste]

40. we have faith you'll get it right one day

"This is not good..."

How precisely does the sentiment of one person address the actions of the GOP.

Keep fishin', little fella-- you'll land THE whopper one day (and not something so melodramatically absurd as high ratings for a GOP debate, or bacon is better that lettuce for the planet-- we have faith you'll get it right one day, and hang your concern hat on something that, well... actually matter)

[Behind the Aegis]

42. Not too obvious.

Yeah, Schumer gave them the idea to stop SC nominations.

[Kingofalldems]

43. Here's GOP and Cave hero Reagan (on Anthony Kennedy) in his last year:

https://twitter.com/igorvolsky/status/698682511350755328

[hollowdweller]

46. May not be any difference between McConnel and Schumer on this but huge difference between parties

Now it's not just the leader it's the whole party, their propaganda apparatus and even the grassroots.

[meow2u3]

47. Washington Examiner is not a credible news source

Why are you linking to a story from a right-wing rag? This story about Schumer denying confirmation of SCOTUS noms for Chimpy is a crock of shit. They're repukes who are making shit up about Schumer to justify blocking any and every SCOTUS nom from Obama.

[yeoman6987]

52. I didn't know it was right wing. Seems everything is now adays.

[Kingofalldems]

65. I love that story.

[lpbk2713]

53. What took you so long?

It has been two whole days.

[clarice]

56. Hi Yeoman....curious...why are you catching so much heat....

seems like a reasonable post to me. I might not agree, but I'm not going to crawl up your leg about it! Geeeeeeez

[yeoman6987]

57. Thanks. I guess some are bored and need to vent to me.

[clarice]

58. I guess. nt

[pintobean]

61. I think some feel the need

to try to regulate what information is available to DUers. Personally, I prefer to be as fully informed as possible, so thanks for posting.

[yeoman6987]

64. Thank you.

[Kingofalldems]

66. I like being informed of actual facts that relate to the premise of the post..

[clarice]

97. What an open minded "progressive" attitude. Good on ya mate. nt

[NYC Liberal]

96. Because the only place the quote appears is right-wing websites, and only in the last week.

[Zo Zig]

71. 58-42 to confirm.

4 D's voted for, Reid stated they didn't have the votes to filibuster. He gave them nothing.

[CreekDog]

73. Obama's nominee will be in the mainstream

but thanks for your concern.

[Rex]

74. Oh my! Some of you are really worried about us getting a liberal judge on the bench!

How predictable.

[PatrickforO]

76. Well, he was wrong too.

[B Calm]

81. Seems like a lifetime since we had a Liberal Supreme Court majority. It's the republicans

time to wait a lifetime.

[Rex]

87. It is entertaining watching conservatives crap their pants over the thought of a liberal judge

on the bench. Been enjoying their anger and frustration.

[NYC Liberal]

95. The ONLY places this quote appears are right-wing websites from the last few days.

Google it:
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&client=safari&rls=en&biw=1340&bih=749&q=2007+%22They+must+prove+by+actions%2C+not+words%2C+that+they+are+in+the+mainstream%22&oq=2007+%22They+must+prove+by+actions%2C+not+words%2C+that+they+are+in+the+mainstream%22

And only 230 results.