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

[paperview]

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

 

[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.

There's lots of precedents besides the Schumer Rule. There's the "Elections Have Consequences" rule, there's the "we won" rule.

Obama needs to reach across the aisle, drop his partisan ideology and nominate a Conservative Italian American to fill the Scalias seat

 

[Camp]

The thread title is inaccurate and distorts the comments made by Sen. Schumer about replacing a Justice during the Bush Presidency. It will not stand up under scrutiny. The distortions are too obvious.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

Shumers brain is made of gefelte fish and attick insulation

 

[Camp]

Shumers brain is made of gefelte fish and attick insulation

It is always entertaining when a racist person who can't spell third-grade spelling words criticizes someone else's intelligence.

 

[paperview]

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

Thanks for that quote.

Very interesting article @ The WaPo:

If Republicans block Obama’s Supreme Court nomination, he wins anyway
A deadlocked court favors Democrats...

It discusses the situation facing the court now about cases that have been heard, but are in that pipeline phase where drafts are circulated and the final opinion is worked out, which can take months. During that time, a justice can change his or her vote along the way.

There is no constitutional provision, no case law and no official policy about what the court should do with cases that have been argued and voted on when a justice dies.

If the vote in a case that hasn’t yet been handed down was 5 to 4, as one might expect with these controversial rulings, can Scalia cast the deciding vote from beyond the grave to change the way America chooses every legislature in the land or integrates its public universities?

A court that cares about its image and constitutional role will not rule in the name of a majority that counts on a dead justice, especially on the core issues of American social life. Such posthumous decisions are so unprecedented they would make Bush v. Gore look like responsible judicial behavior.

The piece goes on to outline how even if the pugnacious 'publicans hold their temper tantrum all year long and decide to block everyone and anyone, as they preemptively announced, this favors the liberals in a way likely to give connies the vapors.

A divided court leaves lower court rulings in place. And the lower courts are blue.
Nine of the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals have a majority of Democratic appointees. That means liberal rulings conservatives were hoping the Supreme Court would overturn remain law.

...Even if the GOP blocks his nominee, the policy outcomes would be very similar to what they’d be if the court had a liberal majority.

Of course, stonewalling will also have the effect of inflaming moderates and independents enough to potentially lose the Senate.

Seems to me the GOP is inbetween a mighty hard rock and a mighty hot place.

 

[peach174]

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?

 

[paperview]

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.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Of course, stonewalling will also have the effect of inflaming moderates and independents enough to potentially lose the Senate.

Funny you mention that. I just wrote my Senator (Portman) just to let him know he wont be receiving my vote this time around.

The Senate needs to do its fucking job. And the people of KY can kiss my ass for sending mitch the turtle to Congress over and over and over. What a bunch of putzes the people of KY are.

 

[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."

And let me guess: You think Ruth Bader Ginsburg is not a radical and an extremist, right? The lady is an airhead who asks the dumbest questions when cases are argued before the court.

 

[paperview]

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."

 

[Camp]

Of course, stonewalling will also have the effect of inflaming moderates and independents enough to potentially lose the Senate.

Funny you mention that. I just wrote my Senator (Portman) just to let him know he wont be receiving my vote this time around.

The Senate needs to do its fucking job. And the people of KY can kiss my ass for sending mitch the turtle to Congress over and over and over. What a bunch of putzes the people of KY are.

Senate Republicans will cave on their threats to disrupt the SCOTUS.

 

[Rustic]

Of course, stonewalling will also have the effect of inflaming moderates and independents enough to potentially lose the Senate.

Funny you mention that. I just wrote my Senator (Portman) just to let him know he wont be receiving my vote this time around.

The Senate needs to do its fucking job. And the people of KY can kiss my ass for sending mitch the turtle to Congress over and over and over. What a bunch of putzes the people of KY are.

Senate Republicans will cave on their threats to disrupt the SCOTUS.

The general public does not give two shits about this sort of thing...
There is nothing pressing, it can wait till the next presidents pick. Commander asshat has shitty judgement, a deal breaker.
Now go hide you silly little dolt... Lol

 

[peach174]

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?

 

[paperview]

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?

There's video of him saying that at the link, doof.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

A link was provided you obnoxious retard.

 

[NYcarbineer]

GW Bush had 15 federal judges confirmed in 2008.

 

[Wildman]

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?

"clueless"....., my friend, these people are far less than "clueless", "stupid" comes to mind, but even that is giving them too much credit, "history"..., they were indoctrinated in their libertard skool mostly about socialism, American history was and most likely stil is a forbidden subject unless it is to celebrate the advances of communism/liberalism into American values.