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

[Faun]

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.

You're right about saying it was Bork who was nominated 19 months before Reagan left office. My apologies. Democrats still didn't have to confirm Kennedy. Both sides gave something up and compromised on Kennedy. Republicans could do that now with Obama but they're gambling they can get a Conservative next year if they don't. They could also get stuck with a Liberal, but they're apparently willing to take that chance.

And the difference between Bork and now is that Democrats weren't shutting down the confirmation process. They were following the process which allows them to reject nominees. As compared to what Republicans are saying now, that they are shutting down the confirmation process until another president is in office.

 

[MarathonMike]

My biggest problem with Obama nominating another Supreme Court Justice is that would make his third after Soto-whatsername and the Hobbitt lady. No President should be allowed three nominations.

 

[Papageorgio]

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?

When have the Republicans?

 

[Faun]

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?

When have the Republicans?

They declared that is what they will do now.

 

[Care4all]

My biggest problem with Obama nominating another Supreme Court Justice is that would make his third after Soto-whatsername and the Hobbitt lady. No President should be allowed three nominations.

the next president will more than likely have 4 justice picks, without this one...they are aging fast....and 4 is too many, let alone giving them 5...4 or 5 would be a stacking imo.

 

[jillian]

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

interesting how you rely on rightwingnut "sources" that leave out this particular part of schumer's statement:

he gave exceptions to when they wouldn't be filibustered and it was based on the individual nominated, not the nominator:
"They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.”

that doesn't seem unreasonable.

You’ll Be Shocked to Learn That Chuck Schumer Is a Massive Hypocrite

the senate unanimously confirmed a judge to the D.C. Circuit, Sri Srinivasan. Clearly not a single republican senator thought he was out of the mainstream or unqualified.

but the wingers hate this president so much that they can't abide the idea of him doing anything presidential.

 

[Papageorgio]

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?

When have the Republicans?

They declared that is what they will do now.

Just as Chucky did. Who did Obama nominate anyway?

 

[rdean]

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 it work?

 

[Papageorgio]

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 it work?

As well as McConnell's has.

 

[HenryBHough]

And here you were wondering where the creators of those movies got the name for their lead character!

 

[saveliberty]

The Supreme Court is not the McDonalds of jurisprudence people. Just because you can flip a federal case does not qualify you to broil steak.

 

[Faun]

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?

When have the Republicans?

They declared that is what they will do now.

Just as Chucky did. Who did Obama nominate anyway?

Schumer said it even though no seats were open, no one supported him, Republicans blasted him, and it never came to pass.

Republicans are gearing up to do it now while a seat is open. Will they follow through? Remains to be seen but it appears so at this point.

If they do it, it will be the first time in U.S. history.

 

[Papageorgio]

Just like Democrats have done in the past.

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

When have the Republicans?

They declared that is what they will do now.

Just as Chucky did. Who did Obama nominate anyway?

Schumer said it even though no seats were open, no one supported him, Republicans blasted him, and it never came to pass.

Republicans are gearing up to do it now while a seat is open. Will they follow through? Remains to be seen but it appears so at this point.

If they do it, it will be the first time in U.S. history.

We'll see, you guys love drama. No one nominated, nothing to get so righteously indignant over. I see a lot of posturing on both sides. The threat could be telling Obama not to send a liberal nominee because there is no chance to be confirmed. Just as Uncle Chucky threaten so does McConnell.

With the record of caving that McConnell has done in the past, you really think he is going to follow through? You remind of the TV station TNT, you know drama.

 

[Dovahkiin]

I don't care about the past.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Republicans are always looking for reasons to why they will go back on their principals. And curiously, they always point to the people they say lack pricipals as a guide.

In other words, it's okay for the Democrats to do it, but not okay for the Republicans to do it--never mind that it was the Democrats who started rejecting nominees on purely ideological bases in the modern era, even though they were unquestionably qualified and had been unanimously confirmed for the U.S. Court of Appeals (Robert Bork).

Re: Your Rules, Democrats, by Charles C. W. Cooke, National Review

And, by the way, the word you're looking for is "principles" (as in values, beliefs, and standards), not "principals" (as in the heads of schools, main people). This is what happens when liberals try to use big words that they don't understand. Sorry, but it's just comical that you couldn't spell "principles."

 

[Papageorgio]

I don't care about the past.

I didn't think you would, yet you feel the need to use it when it benefits you.

 

[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

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

A wise man once said, "Elections have consequences"

 

[mikegriffith1]

A wise man once said, "Elections have consequences"

Yeap, and we just had an election in 2014, and the people gave the Republicans a historic landslide victory, giving them control of the Senate and increasing their majority in the House. Yes, indeed, elections do have consequences.

 

[Geaux4it]

"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

Kennedy votes left for Obama. We need more heart attacks apparently.

-Geaux

 

[mikegriffith1]

Libs, why do you keep using the irrelevant example of Anthony Kennedy's confirmation in February 1988? Kennedy was the second replacement nominee for the first nominee, who was named in July 1987? That was Robert Bork, whom the Dems proceeded to smear and then block, even though Bork had been unanimously confirmed for the U.S. Court of Appeals and was widely regarded as one of the most brilliant legal minds in the country.

By the time the Dems decided to confirm Kennedy, they did not dare block his nomination. They were starting to face backlash for what they had done to Bork and for dragging their feet on Kennedy's nomination for over three months (Reagan nominated Kennedy in November 1987, 14 months before the end of his second term).

So your comparison fails on two points: One, the situation with Kennedy was very different from this one. Two, Kennedy was nominated 14 months before the end of Reagan's second term, whereas Obama only has a little over 10 months left in office.