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

[BluesLegend]

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.

Ahahahaha I see the libs shot themselves in the foot again, so much for Obama appointing a replacement.

 

[Votto]

"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

Boy, oh boy, are you guys just clueless about history or what? Do you know why the Senate confirmed Kennedy 97-0? Huh? Any clue? I mean, seriously, who are you people that you can post such clueless replies?

A little history: Kennedy had to be nominated in the first place because the Democrats had spent months smearing Robert Bork and finally defeating his nomination. Kennedy was the THIRD nominee put up by Reagan. Bork was smeared and blocked; Doug Ginsburg withdrew after it was revealed he had used pot; and then Kennedy was nominated.

By the time Kennedy was nominated, the Democrats were not prepared to mount another smear campaign and block his nomination. Plus, Kennedy was known to be less conservative than Bork, as has proven to be the case.

THAT is why Kennedy was not confirmed until Reagan's last year in office; THAT is why Kennedy was confirmed in February 1988. Kennedy was the replacement for Reagan's first choice, whom Reagan nominated in JULY 1987, over six months earlier.

History is not their strong suit. After all, they are all a bunch of collectivists.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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

11 months before Reagan left office.

How long til Obama leaves office?

Ah, 11 months...

Ah....HA

 

[eagle7_31]

"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

Boy, oh boy, are you guys just clueless about history or what? Do you know why the Senate confirmed Kennedy 97-0? Huh? Any clue? I mean, seriously, who are you people that you can post such clueless replies?

A little history: Kennedy had to be nominated in the first place because the Democrats had spent months smearing Robert Bork and finally defeating his nomination. Kennedy was the THIRD nominee put up by Reagan. Bork was smeared and blocked; Doug Ginsburg withdrew after it was revealed he had used pot; and then Kennedy was nominated.

By the time Kennedy was nominated, the Democrats were not prepared to mount another smear campaign and block his nomination. Plus, Kennedy was known to be less conservative than Bork, as has proven to be the case.

THAT is why Kennedy was not confirmed until Reagan's last year in office; THAT is why Kennedy was confirmed in February 1988. Kennedy was the replacement for Reagan's first choice, whom Reagan nominated in JULY 1987, over six months earlier.

History is not their strong suit. After all, they are all a bunch of collectivists.

What BO may try is to nominate some far left wing African-American and play the race card. Of course you will see the brain dead left on this board chime in regular as clock work.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

"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

Boy, oh boy, are you guys just clueless about history or what? Do you know why the Senate confirmed Kennedy 97-0? Huh? Any clue? I mean, seriously, who are you people that you can post such clueless replies?

A little history: Kennedy had to be nominated in the first place because the Democrats had spent months smearing Robert Bork and finally defeating his nomination. Kennedy was the THIRD nominee put up by Reagan. Bork was smeared and blocked; Doug Ginsburg withdrew after it was revealed he had used pot; and then Kennedy was nominated.

By the time Kennedy was nominated, the Democrats were not prepared to mount another smear campaign and block his nomination. Plus, Kennedy was known to be less conservative than Bork, as has proven to be the case.

THAT is why Kennedy was not confirmed until Reagan's last year in office; THAT is why Kennedy was confirmed in February 1988. Kennedy was the replacement for Reagan's first choice, whom Reagan nominated in JULY 1987, over six months earlier.

History is not their strong suit. After all, they are all a bunch of collectivists.

It's not only their weakness, but what is worse is their complete inability to fact-check something themselves before lapping it up as truth.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.

Wow you found some comments in a forum.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

"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

Boy, oh boy, are you guys just clueless about history or what? Do you know why the Senate confirmed Kennedy 97-0? Huh? Any clue? I mean, seriously, who are you people that you can post such clueless replies?

A little history: Kennedy had to be nominated in the first place because the Democrats had spent months smearing Robert Bork and finally defeating his nomination. Kennedy was the THIRD nominee put up by Reagan. Bork was smeared and blocked; Doug Ginsburg withdrew after it was revealed he had used pot; and then Kennedy was nominated.

By the time Kennedy was nominated, the Democrats were not prepared to mount another smear campaign and block his nomination. Plus, Kennedy was known to be less conservative than Bork, as has proven to be the case.

THAT is why Kennedy was not confirmed until Reagan's last year in office; THAT is why Kennedy was confirmed in February 1988. Kennedy was the replacement for Reagan's first choice, whom Reagan nominated in JULY 1987, over six months earlier.

History is not their strong suit. After all, they are all a bunch of collectivists.

What BO may try is to nominate some far left wing African-American and play the race card. Of course you will see the brain dead left on this board chime in regular as clock work.

You should do some checking out of possible nominations before you go all racist on us.
Here, honey....from Fox Noise: Supreme Court Short List? Deep bench of potential nominees to succeed Scalia | Fox News

Personally I hope he nominates Loretta Lynch.

 

[francoHFW]

Honestly, I fully expect the democrats to begin falling on the floor - kicking and screaming and yelling "The republicans are being mean to us!!!" in the next few weeks...

God, it makes me happy!!

The "No compromise, un-American TP GOP" (TIME) speaks. Change the channel.

Hell, you can change the channel anytime you wish - the results will be the same on every channel. You guys are getting your asses kicked three ways from Sunday. Prepare the crying. Your run was good (I guess) although Barry wasn't able to "fundamentally transform" this country. Not quite. What he DID accomplish, however, was to awaken the American people. Or, as a famous Japanese Admiral was once heard to say - "I fear that all we have accomplished is to awaken a sleeping giant".

America is awake. Now your side can retire to peaceful slumber once again with dreams of Woodstock and Che' Gueverra dancing in your pointed little heads.

Sure, dupe. Keep pandering to the chickenhawk lying greedy rich and giant corps and wrecking the country. See sig pp 1.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Honestly, I fully expect the democrats to begin falling on the floor - kicking and screaming and yelling "The republicans are being mean to us!!!" in the next few weeks...

God, it makes me happy!!

The "No compromise, un-American TP GOP" (TIME) speaks. Change the channel.

Hell, you can change the channel anytime you wish - the results will be the same on every channel. You guys are getting your asses kicked three ways from Sunday. Prepare the crying. Your run was good (I guess) although Barry wasn't able to "fundamentally transform" this country. Not quite. What he DID accomplish, however, was to awaken the American people. Or, as a famous Japanese Admiral was once heard to say - "I fear that all we have accomplished is to awaken a sleeping giant".

America is awake. Now your side can retire to peaceful slumber once again with dreams of Woodstock and Che' Gueverra dancing in your pointed little heads.

Sure, dupe. Keep pandering to the chickenhawk lying greedy rich and giant corps and wrecking the country. See sig pp 1.

Franco - don't you have a KKK rally to go to?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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.

Wow you found some comments in a forum.

They are opinions. You don't seem to have one. Why waste the pixel space?

 

[RandallFlagg]

"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

Boy, oh boy, are you guys just clueless about history or what? Do you know why the Senate confirmed Kennedy 97-0? Huh? Any clue? I mean, seriously, who are you people that you can post such clueless replies?

A little history: Kennedy had to be nominated in the first place because the Democrats had spent months smearing Robert Bork and finally defeating his nomination. Kennedy was the THIRD nominee put up by Reagan. Bork was smeared and blocked; Doug Ginsburg withdrew after it was revealed he had used pot; and then Kennedy was nominated.

By the time Kennedy was nominated, the Democrats were not prepared to mount another smear campaign and block his nomination. Plus, Kennedy was known to be less conservative than Bork, as has proven to be the case.

THAT is why Kennedy was not confirmed until Reagan's last year in office; THAT is why Kennedy was confirmed in February 1988. Kennedy was the replacement for Reagan's first choice, whom Reagan nominated in JULY 1987, over six months earlier.

History is not their strong suit. After all, they are all a bunch of collectivists.

What BO may try is to nominate some far left wing African-American and play the race card. Of course you will see the brain dead left on this board chime in regular as clock work.

You should do some checking out of possible nominations before you go all racist on us.
Here, honey....from Fox Noise: Supreme Court Short List? Deep bench of potential nominees to succeed Scalia | Fox News

Personally I hope he nominates Loretta Lynch.

For the 1500th time. He can nominate any asshole he wants to. It is a waste of time.

 

[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.

 

[deltex1]

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

Check with Pogo...Sapphire already covered this subject....yo

 

[francoHFW]

Honestly, I fully expect the democrats to begin falling on the floor - kicking and screaming and yelling "The republicans are being mean to us!!!" in the next few weeks...

God, it makes me happy!!

The "No compromise, un-American TP GOP" (TIME) speaks. Change the channel.

Hell, you can change the channel anytime you wish - the results will be the same on every channel. You guys are getting your asses kicked three ways from Sunday. Prepare the crying. Your run was good (I guess) although Barry wasn't able to "fundamentally transform" this country. Not quite. What he DID accomplish, however, was to awaken the American people. Or, as a famous Japanese Admiral was once heard to say - "I fear that all we have accomplished is to awaken a sleeping giant".

America is awake. Now your side can retire to peaceful slumber once again with dreams of Woodstock and Che' Gueverra dancing in your pointed little heads.

Sure, dupe. Keep pandering to the chickenhawk lying greedy rich and giant corps and wrecking the country. See sig pp 1.

Franco - don't you have a KKK rally to go to?

No connect to reality at all lol...

 

[deltex1]

"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

Boy, oh boy, are you guys just clueless about history or what? Do you know why the Senate confirmed Kennedy 97-0? Huh? Any clue? I mean, seriously, who are you people that you can post such clueless replies?

A little history: Kennedy had to be nominated in the first place because the Democrats had spent months smearing Robert Bork and finally defeating his nomination. Kennedy was the THIRD nominee put up by Reagan. Bork was smeared and blocked; Doug Ginsburg withdrew after it was revealed he had used pot; and then Kennedy was nominated.

By the time Kennedy was nominated, the Democrats were not prepared to mount another smear campaign and block his nomination. Plus, Kennedy was known to be less conservative than Bork, as has proven to be the case.

THAT is why Kennedy was not confirmed until Reagan's last year in office; THAT is why Kennedy was confirmed in February 1988. Kennedy was the replacement for Reagan's first choice, whom Reagan nominated in JULY 1987, over six months earlier.

History is not their strong suit. After all, they are all a bunch of collectivists.

What BO may try is to nominate some far left wing African-American and play the race card. Of course you will see the brain dead left on this board chime in regular as clock work.

You should do some checking out of possible nominations before you go all racist on us.
Here, honey....from Fox Noise: Supreme Court Short List? Deep bench of potential nominees to succeed Scalia | Fox News

Personally I hope he nominates Loretta Lynch.

For the 1500th time. He can nominate any asshole he wants to. It is a waste of time.

Amen...Obama can nominate. The Senate can disapprove the nomination. End of whining...please.

 

[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?

 

[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.

Wow you found some comments in a forum.

Yes, much like comments on this forum and any other forum. Forums such as these are popular avenues for folks to express themselves.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

 

[Rustic]

Barry has shitty judgment, he does not deserve a pick...