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

[francoHFW]

OP- Another obscure reference taken to ridiculous extremes. Schumer just said he was sick of being lied to by Pub nominees and going along too easily and would debate harder in the process, not this GOP BS. ONE HOUR after Scalia's death, the bought off a-hole McConnell already promising total obstruction, just like after Obama's election. A disgrace.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Cut the shit, Griffith.

Saturday Night Massacre Bork was a fucking mess from top to bottom, and even some of those in his own party rendered him a stunning loss in the total vote count/

Which he could have predicted with the 9 - 5 nay vote of the Judiciary Committee.

Thank the freaking lord that despicable creature, who showed himself after to be more extreme than anyone could have imagined, was never confirmed.

You're an extremist and a wingnut. Bork did not "show himself to be more extreme than anyone could have imagined." Rather, the Dems twisted and distorted a handful of his statements and ignored his record as a whole. His appellate decisions had a very high percentage of being sustained by the Supreme Court, hardly the mark of being "extreme."

Said the extremist wingnut who stated - and I quote - "No one ever talks about the good aspects of slavery."

That's the same kind of smear attack that the Dems used on Bork. You've taken one comment, paraphrased it, and ignored everything I said before and after that statement.

We both know that if you quoted the paragraph in which that statement appears and the paragraph before and after it, reasonable people would read them and say, "Yes, that seems logical and fair. What's the problem?"

Judged by the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, Bork was in fact a somewhat mild conservative. He was not as conservative as Scalia or Alito. But he was too conservative for the Democrats, and so they smeared and blocked him, in spite of his indisputable qualifications and academic standing, not to mention the fact that he had been unanimously confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Look you nutcake -- there is zero, none, zippo, nada context that makes your oft repeated line (said in varying ways) "No one ever talks about the *good* aspects of slavery."

You're quote is still legend at H, because it was such an appalling defense of slavery you made over and over, no one there can ever forget it.

You're a neo-confederate shitbag I debated for some 8 years, and I know enough about your views to say you are one of the most despicable persons I have ever traded words with.

One, why don't you quote the entire segment from my article instead of that one lone sentence? Humm? Why? Because you know that reasonable people will read it and instantly see how dishonestly you are using it, and will readily see that I was not at all defending slavery?

Two, many scholars--who, like me, condemn slavery and are glad it was abolished--have discussed the humane way that slavery was usually administered and/or the good aspects of that evil institution. Are these scholars--who include Ken Stampp, Eugene and Liz Genovese, James McPherson, Robert Fogel, etc., etc.--are they all engaging in a "defense of slavery"? Even a neo-abolitionist historian like McPherson is willing to admit that most married slave couples were not broken up by slavery.

Three, as numerous scholars have documented, and as anyone can read in the slave statements themselves, the majority of slaves who discussed the conditions of slavery said that their masters were decent people and that their living conditions were either acceptable or even good. Were the slaves engaging in a "defense of slavery" when they said those things?

Four, your views on the Civil War are driven and warped by your far-left political views and by your desire to demonize the South. Anyone who points out the evidence that in most cases--certainly not in all, but in most cases--slavery was administered humanely, you dishonestly accuse them of defending slavery itself, even though any honest, rational person can see the obvious difference between talking about the conditions of slavery and talking about the morality of the institution itself. Forced, unjustified bondage is wrong no matter how humanely it might be administered. I've said this a million times, but you just ignore it.

For those who want to see what this guy is talking about, here is the article from which he has pulled the statement about the good aspects of slavery:

SLAVERY AND SOUTHERN INDEPENDENCE:

And here's the entire segment from the article from which he is quoting:

So what are the facts about slavery in the South? Did any good come from slavery? Did slavery have any good aspects? Did all slaveowners mistreat their slaves? The subject of slavery in the antebellum (i.e., pre-Civil War) South is a delicate, highly charged issue because history books and documentaries have usually only told one side of the story. The recent PBS documentary Slavery and the Making of America is a prime example of the one-sided, misleading, and incomplete portrayals of Southern slavery that are usually presented to the public. I'm not trying to justify slavery. All I'm saying is that if we're going to talk about slavery, let's be factual about it.

Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution. Historians typically cite the worst cases of mistreatment and abuse but ignore or minimize the far more numerous cases of humane treatment, mutual respect, and genuine friendship. True, the good aspects of slavery don't outweigh the fact that slavery was wrong, but they should be noted in the interest of fairness and historical truth.

Defending how slavery was usually administered is not the same thing as defending slavery itself. If my daughter were abducted, I would never condone her abduction; however, I would be willing to admit that her abductors did not abuse her, if that were indeed the case. To put it another way, I would never excuse her abductors for their crime, but I would acknowledge that they did not abuse her while they held her captive. Similarly, slavery was wrong no matter how humanely it was usually administered, but let us be willing to admit that most slaves were not brutalized, if that was in fact the case.​

As for your smearing of Bork, your smears have been answered a hundred times over, and it's clear that you have no read any of the defenses of Bork. Here are a few for you:

Robert Bork's America

http://nypost.com/2012/12/20/behind-the-smears/

Remembering Judge Bork

 

[bendog]

When Bork said he couldn't find any right to privacy in the const, his nomination was doomed. That wasn't just abortion, it was basic contraception, i.e. whether Conn could not allow the sale of safe contraceptives because they thought God was behind it or women needed to be controlled or whatever. Bork was brilliant, but his views ... they'd be at home before the New Deal. But for better or worse, the country had moved on from the constitution he thought he saw.

Now we can go all originalist, but the fact was there were no laws about this stuff at the time of ratification.

 

[Doc7505]

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.

As I've previously stated, Democrats have opposed GOP presidents in appointing conservative Supreme Court Justices and have blocked Presidents for recess appointments too. Time for them to feel how that tight shoe fits on the Left.

 

[rdean]

Bush tried to nominate his secretary. His fucking secretary. Harriet Miers. Who could trust him after that?

 

[Rustic]

Bush tried to nominate his secretary. His fucking secretary. Harriet Miers. Who could trust him after that?

 

[Faun]

Mitch McConnell, when Bush was president:

"Our democratic colleagues continually talk about the so-called 'Thurmond Rule,' under which the Senate supposedly stops confirming judges in a presidential election year," McConnell announced.

"This seeming obsession with this rule that doesn't exist is just an excuse for our colleagues to run out the clock on qualified nominees who are waiting to fill badly needed vacancies."

John Oliver Just Destroyed the GOP for Their Plan to Block Scalia's Replacement

If it doesn't exist why have Dems used it the past?

Ask Mitch McConnell. He's the one that said it didn't exist.

Where is the proof that he actually said that?
Is there a video of him saying it?

Of course there is....

McConnell in 2008: Senate should not stop confirming judges in election year - The Washington Post

“Our Democratic colleagues continually talk about the so-called Thurmond Rule, under which the Senate supposedly stops confirming judges in a presidential election year. I'm concerned that this seeming obsession with this supposed rule, which by the way, doesn’t exist; and Senator Specter has researched that thoroughly and there is no such rule. But anyway, this seeming obsession with this rule that doesn't exist is just an excuse for our colleagues to run out the clock on qualified nominees who are waiting to fill badly-needed vacancies.” ~ Mitch McConnell

 

[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.

As I've previously stated, Democrats have opposed GOP presidents in appointing conservative Supreme Court Justices and have blocked Presidents for recess appointments too.

Holy shit.

That's not even the issue. <smh>

 

[BlueGin]

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.

As I've previously stated, Democrats have opposed GOP presidents in appointing conservative Supreme Court Justices and have blocked Presidents for recess appointments too. Time for them to feel how that tight shoe fits on the Left.

Correct.

Why is it the libs never do anything for the good of the country?