Sen. Schumer Called for Blocking Any Future Bush Supreme Court Nominees--IN JULY 2007

[CrusaderFrank]

In July 2007, when George W. Bush had more than 17 months left in office, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), a leading Senate Democrat and the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called on the Senate to block any Bush nominees to the Supreme Court if an opening occurred on the court between then and the end of Bush's second term. Yet, Democrats are howling and screaming over Senator McConnell's position that the Senate should not vote on Obama's nominee to replace Scalia and should wait until the next president submits a nominee. What a pack of hypocrites.

Obama has less than 12 months left in office. When Schumer called for blocking any and all Bush nominees if any vacancies opened on the Supreme Court, Bush had over 17 months left in office. But Democrats are whining and crying over the idea that Senate Republicans won't allow Obama to replace Scalia. Again, what a pack of hypocrites.

FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations

Schumer to fight new Bush high court picks

And many on the right bashed him for it, and rightfully so. Here's an example...

• "This is a strange tack for Schumer to take. Normally exalted members of the world's greatest deliberative body posture themselves as being fair and open-minded before questions of great weight are decided by them. But this time Schumer, who is diabolical but no fool, has shifted course and steered onto another tack. Why? Why would Schumer betray to the whole world that he simply will not give the nominee of the president of the United States to the Supreme Court a fair hearing?"

• "What he fails to understand is that he doesn’t have the right to filibuster judicial nominees. Or is it the case that his personal feelings or quest for power are more important than the Constitution."

• "I suppose that this piece of New York excrement would be declaring it one of the high lights of his career if it had been one or two LIBERAL pukes had been appointed to the SC. He is an (_*_)"

• "I would say this statement should be used by the Republicans to say Chuck Schumer should be taken off the committee. He has made up his mind on all nominees before they are even nominated."

• "But that’s the thing. These people have elevated the opposition to doing ANYTHING....and the only barrier is if they can get away with it. No constitution, no tradition, no fairness."

• "The Dems know that a HUGE portion of their base is either fanatical or ignorant and that they can get away with almost anything . The sheeple follow the Dems without question. They are so blind in their vengeance against Bush that they accept everything and anything the party does.The Dems leaders know this and take full advantage of their ignorant base. You surely don’t think the Dem leadership actually believes half of what they say do you ? I’m sure that behind closed doors the Dem leadership must laugh their asses off over how stupid their loyal followers actually are."

• "This is a terrible failing on Schumer's part. Away with this "confession" act as if that matters. He flat out screwed the pooch, and I for one don't accept this apology. The only penance I'll accept is his resignation."

• "Schmuckie’s latest hand-wringing over the Alito appointment leads me to think there’s another SCOTUS retirement in the works. He and his henchmen in the senate make me sick."

• "Why Schumer hasn’t been tried for Treason yet is beyond me..."

more on freerepublic.com​

Now they cheer for it.

You poisoned the process with Bork and Clarence Thomas and now we have your Schumer precedent. As they say, payback is a barack

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Schumer was wrong - he doesn't represent democrats, he doesn't speak for democrats, and he doesn't have the support of democrats on this issue.

Fucking hilarious!

Why I never even heard of Schumer!

 

[LeftofLeft]

Democrats on Capitol Hill have a history of making it difficult for Republican Presidents nominees to get on the Court; whether Democrats are majority or minority.

They always go thru the process and even believe obvious liars like Alito. This has been the most partisan GOP SC ever. A disgrace. Still talking about Bork or what?

How is this more Partisan vs. Kennedy and Schumer?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[francoHFW]

Democrats on Capitol Hill have a history of making it difficult for Republican Presidents nominees to get on the Court; whether Democrats are majority or minority.

They always go thru the process and even believe obvious liars like Alito. This has been the most partisan GOP SC ever. A disgrace. Still talking about Bork or what?

How is this more Partisan vs. Kennedy and Schumer?

Schumer never proposed not even giving a hearing.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Democrats on Capitol Hill have a history of making it difficult for Republican Presidents nominees to get on the Court; whether Democrats are majority or minority.

They always go thru the process and even believe obvious liars like Alito. This has been the most partisan GOP SC ever. A disgrace. Still talking about Bork or what?

How is this more Partisan vs. Kennedy and Schumer?

Schumer never proposed not even giving a hearing.

What difference does a fucking hearing make when senior Schumer is giving marching orders not to approve and nominees? Think Boy!

 

[LeftofLeft]

Kennedy, Biden, and Schumer said Fuck You to that. Why shouldn't today's Party controlling the Hill do the same? You people need to think critically and analytically.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

stop the hating on the Black President.....he can nominate and he will...

 

[Syriusly]

In July 2007, when George W. Bush had more than 17 months left in office, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), a leading Senate Democrat and the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called on the Senate to block any Bush nominees to the Supreme Court if an opening occurred on the court between then and the end of Bush's second term. Yet, Democrats are howling and screaming over Senator McConnell's position that the Senate should not vote on Obama's nominee to replace Scalia and should wait until the next president submits a nominee. What a pack of hypocrites.

Obama has less than 12 months left in office. When Schumer called for blocking any and all Bush nominees if any vacancies opened on the Supreme Court, Bush had over 17 months left in office. But Democrats are whining and crying over the idea that Senate Republicans won't allow Obama to replace Scalia. Again, what a pack of hypocrites.

FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations

Schumer to fight new Bush high court picks

And many on the right bashed him for it, and rightfully so. Here's an example...

• "This is a strange tack for Schumer to take. Normally exalted members of the world's greatest deliberative body posture themselves as being fair and open-minded before questions of great weight are decided by them. But this time Schumer, who is diabolical but no fool, has shifted course and steered onto another tack. Why? Why would Schumer betray to the whole world that he simply will not give the nominee of the president of the United States to the Supreme Court a fair hearing?"

• "What he fails to understand is that he doesn’t have the right to filibuster judicial nominees. Or is it the case that his personal feelings or quest for power are more important than the Constitution."

• "I suppose that this piece of New York excrement would be declaring it one of the high lights of his career if it had been one or two LIBERAL pukes had been appointed to the SC. He is an (_*_)"

• "I would say this statement should be used by the Republicans to say Chuck Schumer should be taken off the committee. He has made up his mind on all nominees before they are even nominated."

• "But that’s the thing. These people have elevated the opposition to doing ANYTHING....and the only barrier is if they can get away with it. No constitution, no tradition, no fairness."

• "The Dems know that a HUGE portion of their base is either fanatical or ignorant and that they can get away with almost anything . The sheeple follow the Dems without question. They are so blind in their vengeance against Bush that they accept everything and anything the party does.The Dems leaders know this and take full advantage of their ignorant base. You surely don’t think the Dem leadership actually believes half of what they say do you ? I’m sure that behind closed doors the Dem leadership must laugh their asses off over how stupid their loyal followers actually are."

• "This is a terrible failing on Schumer's part. Away with this "confession" act as if that matters. He flat out screwed the pooch, and I for one don't accept this apology. The only penance I'll accept is his resignation."

• "Schmuckie’s latest hand-wringing over the Alito appointment leads me to think there’s another SCOTUS retirement in the works. He and his henchmen in the senate make me sick."

• "Why Schumer hasn’t been tried for Treason yet is beyond me..."

more on freerepublic.com​

Now they cheer for it.

Sorry, but you folks are just such liars. Republicans have learned from hard experience that Democrats have no respect for tradition and law.

So Republicans have vowed not to respect tradition or the law!

That will show the voters!

 

[Auld Phart]

stop the hating on the Black President.....he can nominate and he will...

Just like Reagan did.

and he may have to wait even longer than Reagan did to get a justice confirmed

 

[LeftofLeft]

Kennedy, Biden, and Schumer said Fuck You to that. Why shouldn't today's Party controlling the Hill do the same? You people need to think critically and analytically.

stop the hating on the Black President.....he can nominate and he will...

My first choice in '12 was Herman Cain. My '16 first choice is Ben Carson. The current President has a white Irish mother and typical white grandmothers just like me. What is the basis for your hate accusations other than you got slammed and have no refute of substance? You lose.

 

[Care4all]

In July 2007, when George W. Bush had more than 17 months left in office, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), a leading Senate Democrat and the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called on the Senate to block any Bush nominees to the Supreme Court if an opening occurred on the court between then and the end of Bush's second term. Yet, Democrats are howling and screaming over Senator McConnell's position that the Senate should not vote on Obama's nominee to replace Scalia and should wait until the next president submits a nominee. What a pack of hypocrites.

Obama has less than 12 months left in office. When Schumer called for blocking any and all Bush nominees if any vacancies opened on the Supreme Court, Bush had over 17 months left in office. But Democrats are whining and crying over the idea that Senate Republicans won't allow Obama to replace Scalia. Again, what a pack of hypocrites.

FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations

Schumer to fight new Bush high court picks

No, not really....

If you read the linked article from your first link, Schumer DID NOT SAY or call for blocking all of Bush's Supreme court Nominations...NOT AT ALL

Don't you guys ever go in to the links your partisan rags use or do you just always believe your right wing rags right up front.

what Schumer was talking about was not vetting these nominees enough, and regretted not vetting Alito more on his position of upholding what was precedence, and how the Supreme courts previously had decided....and why they had decided in the manner they did.

He was saying he, on the Judiciary committee, had not done his job well in the vetting...

 

[Borillar]

In July 2007, when George W. Bush had more than 17 months left in office, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), a leading Senate Democrat and the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called on the Senate to block any Bush nominees to the Supreme Court if an opening occurred on the court between then and the end of Bush's second term. Yet, Democrats are howling and screaming over Senator McConnell's position that the Senate should not vote on Obama's nominee to replace Scalia and should wait until the next president submits a nominee. What a pack of hypocrites.

Obama has less than 12 months left in office. When Schumer called for blocking any and all Bush nominees if any vacancies opened on the Supreme Court, Bush had over 17 months left in office. But Democrats are whining and crying over the idea that Senate Republicans won't allow Obama to replace Scalia. Again, what a pack of hypocrites.

FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations

Schumer to fight new Bush high court picks

Did Schumer or the Dems block Bush from replacing Justice Rehnquist after he passed away? No. Roberts was confirmed within a month.

Did Schumer block any Bush Supreme Court nominees? No.

Did any Democrats jump on board his call to block nominees? None that I can find.

 

[wrathbone]

The process takes a bit of time, but the question is 'who' will Bam nominate. If he picks a moderate, there shouldn't be an issue....but no matter, Repub's will block, delay, and stew in their own shit for months at a time.

 

[LeftofLeft]

In July 2007, when George W. Bush had more than 17 months left in office, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), a leading Senate Democrat and the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called on the Senate to block any Bush nominees to the Supreme Court if an opening occurred on the court between then and the end of Bush's second term. Yet, Democrats are howling and screaming over Senator McConnell's position that the Senate should not vote on Obama's nominee to replace Scalia and should wait until the next president submits a nominee. What a pack of hypocrites.

Obama has less than 12 months left in office. When Schumer called for blocking any and all Bush nominees if any vacancies opened on the Supreme Court, Bush had over 17 months left in office. But Democrats are whining and crying over the idea that Senate Republicans won't allow Obama to replace Scalia. Again, what a pack of hypocrites.

FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations

Schumer to fight new Bush high court picks

Did Schumer or the Dems block Bush from replacing Justice Rehnquist after he passed away? No. Roberts was confirmed within a month.

Did Schumer block any Bush Supreme Court nominees? No.

Did any Democrats jump on board his call to block nominees? None that I can find.

Schumer called for it and Democrats did not call on principle as they are now. As for actual blocking, go to Kennedy.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Kennedy was nominated in November, confirmed 3 months later in February.

11 months before Reagan left office.

How long til Obama leaves office?

Obama leaves office in eleven months.

Haven't you been paying attention?

Yes, and as stated before, he still has to nominate someone, Congress has to approve, odds are he will need to nominate someone else.

etc, etc, etc

Like with Kennedy, he may not get his nomination thru for months

That's not the issue here. Again, are you not paying attention??

The problem isn't with Republicans rejecting his first pick, whom he hasn't even named yet as far as I'm aware -- the problem is they already declared they will not confirm anyone he picks. That goes against the Constitution.

Just like Democrats have done in the past.

Oh? When have Democrats blocked a president from appointing a Supreme Court justice entirely?

Uh, are you serious? Heard of Robert Bork?

And you can bet that if Reagan had nominated someone as conservative as Bork after the Democrats had smeared and blocked him, the Democrats would have blocked that person as well, no matter how qualified he was.

By the way, when the Senate confirmed the less-conservative Kennedy, that court seat had been vacant for eight months, and the world did not end.

 

[wrathbone]

Schumer was wrong - he doesn't represent democrats, he doesn't speak for democrats, and he doesn't have the support of democrats on this issue.

Fucking hilarious!

Why I never even heard of Schumer!

If you've never heard of Chuck Schumer, what cave have you been sleeping in? And yes, he is representative of Democrats and yes, he does speak for democrats.....what cave have you been passed out in?
First, know the players before you hack it all up FFS!

 

[mikegriffith1]

Turnabout is fair play.

Do tell?

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

I just answered this nonsense. Kennedy was confirmed EIGHT MONTHS after Reagan nominated Robert Bork. Kennedy had to be nominated because the Dems smeared and blocked Bork, and then Reagan's second pick had to withdraw for personal issues. The point is that Kennedy was the second replacement for a candidate who was nominated EIGHT MONTHS EARLIER--19 MONTHS BEFORE THE END OF REAGAN'S SECOND TERM. So your example is full of holes.

Got it?

Kennedy was nominated 14 months until the end of Reagan's term, not 19. And he was confirmed by a Senate which could have blocked him too had they wanted. They confirmed him because he was far more moderate than Bork.I don't recall any Democrats at the time suggesting they wait until the next president gets elected to pick a replacement.

Huh? Uh, I didn't say Kennedy was nominated 19 months before the end of Reagan's second term. I said Bork was, and that Kennedy was the second replacement nominee after the Democrats had smeared and blocked Bork.

The point is that the nominee whom Kennedy replaced was nominated 19 months before the end of Reagan's time in office. So the argument that the Senate should confirm Obama's nominee with less than a year left in office because the Senate confirmed Kennedy with 11 months left in Reagan's tenure is bogus. They were two very different situations.

As you said, Kennedy was more moderate, but that was only part of it. The Democrats were facing a backlash over how they had treated Bork, and they were just not prepared to block the third nominee for the vacant seat. That was a far different situation than the one we now face.

 

[Faun]

In July 2007, when George W. Bush had more than 17 months left in office, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), a leading Senate Democrat and the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called on the Senate to block any Bush nominees to the Supreme Court if an opening occurred on the court between then and the end of Bush's second term. Yet, Democrats are howling and screaming over Senator McConnell's position that the Senate should not vote on Obama's nominee to replace Scalia and should wait until the next president submits a nominee. What a pack of hypocrites.

Obama has less than 12 months left in office. When Schumer called for blocking any and all Bush nominees if any vacancies opened on the Supreme Court, Bush had over 17 months left in office. But Democrats are whining and crying over the idea that Senate Republicans won't allow Obama to replace Scalia. Again, what a pack of hypocrites.

FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations

Schumer to fight new Bush high court picks

And many on the right bashed him for it, and rightfully so. Here's an example...

• "This is a strange tack for Schumer to take. Normally exalted members of the world's greatest deliberative body posture themselves as being fair and open-minded before questions of great weight are decided by them. But this time Schumer, who is diabolical but no fool, has shifted course and steered onto another tack. Why? Why would Schumer betray to the whole world that he simply will not give the nominee of the president of the United States to the Supreme Court a fair hearing?"

• "What he fails to understand is that he doesn’t have the right to filibuster judicial nominees. Or is it the case that his personal feelings or quest for power are more important than the Constitution."

• "I suppose that this piece of New York excrement would be declaring it one of the high lights of his career if it had been one or two LIBERAL pukes had been appointed to the SC. He is an (_*_)"

• "I would say this statement should be used by the Republicans to say Chuck Schumer should be taken off the committee. He has made up his mind on all nominees before they are even nominated."

• "But that’s the thing. These people have elevated the opposition to doing ANYTHING....and the only barrier is if they can get away with it. No constitution, no tradition, no fairness."

• "The Dems know that a HUGE portion of their base is either fanatical or ignorant and that they can get away with almost anything . The sheeple follow the Dems without question. They are so blind in their vengeance against Bush that they accept everything and anything the party does.The Dems leaders know this and take full advantage of their ignorant base. You surely don’t think the Dem leadership actually believes half of what they say do you ? I’m sure that behind closed doors the Dem leadership must laugh their asses off over how stupid their loyal followers actually are."

• "This is a terrible failing on Schumer's part. Away with this "confession" act as if that matters. He flat out screwed the pooch, and I for one don't accept this apology. The only penance I'll accept is his resignation."

• "Schmuckie’s latest hand-wringing over the Alito appointment leads me to think there’s another SCOTUS retirement in the works. He and his henchmen in the senate make me sick."

• "Why Schumer hasn’t been tried for Treason yet is beyond me..."

more on freerepublic.com​

Now they cheer for it.

You poisoned the process with Bork and Clarence Thomas and now we have your Schumer precedent. As they say, payback is a barack

There is no precedent. No Senate ever shut down the confirmation process.

 

[Borillar]

Obama leaves office in eleven months.

Haven't you been paying attention?

Yes, and as stated before, he still has to nominate someone, Congress has to approve, odds are he will need to nominate someone else.

etc, etc, etc

Like with Kennedy, he may not get his nomination thru for months

That's not the issue here. Again, are you not paying attention??

The problem isn't with Republicans rejecting his first pick, whom he hasn't even named yet as far as I'm aware -- the problem is they already declared they will not confirm anyone he picks. That goes against the Constitution.

Just like Democrats have done in the past.

Oh? When have Democrats blocked a president from appointing a Supreme Court justice entirely?

Uh, are you serious? Heard of Robert Bork?

And you can bet that if Reagan had nominated someone as conservative as Bork after the Democrats smeared and blocked him, the Democrats would have blocked that person as well, no matter how qualified he was.

By the way, when the Senate confirmed the less-conservative Kennedy, that court seat had been vacant for eight months, and the world did not end.

Did Bork get hearings? Did he get a vote? Yes and yes.