In 2007 Chuck Schumer Urged Democrats To BLOCK BUSH SCOTUS NOMINEES (VIDEO)

Chuck Schumer pic

As usual, when the shoe is on the other foot, Democrats sing a different tune. Today, they want Obama to pick Scalia’s replacement. Back in 2007, things were different.

CNS News reports:

Schumer in ’07: ‘We Should Not Confirm Any Bush Nominee to the Supreme Court’

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is describing current GOP calls to let the next president make a Supreme Court nomination “obstructionism”, but in 2007 Schumer said, “I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining (Justices John) Roberts and (Samuel) Alito,” and recommended the Senate, “should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society on July 27, 2007.

“With respect to the Supreme Court at least, I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining (John) Roberts and (Samuel) Alito on the court,” Schumer later added.

Watch the video:

They have no leg to stand on with this.

(Image:Source)

Get news like this in your Facebook News Feed,
Progressives Today

  • Bubba Gump

    Thank you Chucky

  • Jim

    I bet he “forgot”.

  • The leg the DO have to stand on with this is the Constitution of the United States. No Senator from either side, should be allowed to obstruct the Contitutional obligation of any President, nor obstruc the Senate’s obligations to adivise or confirm.

  • MicahStone

    Just how disgusting is Chucky? Let’s view some of the ways….

  • MicahStone

    –Having nightmares, yet ?

    • Bettinacnickerson

      ❝my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.❞….two days ago new McLaren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Here!b499➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsStandardGetSpot/98$hourly…. .❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:::::!b499……

  • Maezeppa

    It’s not the same thing at all. Sen. Schumer wasn’t the Speaker of the Senate and was just being emotional. Unlike McConnell, he had no standing to speak for his party as a bloc.

    • Outlaw284

      So the number 3 democrat at the time saying what he did and getting 23 other democrats to filibuster nominees with him was him just being emotional.
      Try another spin that one isn’t working.

      • Maezeppa

        Don’t have to “spin” because you Republicans and your silly tantrums are disgrace enough. I shake my head as you implode. Talk about sore winners, you people just get uglier by the year.

        • witnesstothecarnage

          Implode?? LOL…lady, the fun is just beginning.

          • Maezeppa

            Yes, the fun is. And on the first Wednesday in November, I’ll be back to laugh at you.

          • witnesstothecarnage

            I’ll be here.

          • Maezeppa

            I’m looking forward to it.

          • witnesstothecarnage

            I know. It’s important for you to have someone to laugh at, of that I’m certain.

          • Maezeppa

            You make a sumptuous target.

          • witnesstothecarnage

            Come back when you’ve won.

            It’s the 21st century… The derision of fools is now a badge of honor among independent thinkers.

            Try to catch up?

          • Maezeppa

            Your foolish derision is duly noted.

          • witnesstothecarnage

            As is your delusion. Do we stop now? Or, do you need more nickles?

          • Maezeppa

            Any time you post to me you will receive the courtesy of a reply. Carry on if you must, and apparently you must.

          • witnesstothecarnage

            really?

          • Maezeppa

            Yes indeed. Do carry on.

          • witnesstothecarnage

            OK.

          • Maezeppa

            Good.

          • witnesstothecarnage

            Really?

            Another trait of trolls is the mistaken impression that just speaking the last word is a win.

            We’ll disabuse you of that ignorance… if it takes weeks.

            Proceed.

          • Maezeppa

            Again, you will always receive the courtesy of a reply when you post to me.

          • witnesstothecarnage

            I heard you the first time. I don’t consider compulsions to be “courtesy”… but, that isn’t the delusion we are working on atm.

            🙂

          • Maezeppa

            Is it too late for you to start whining about Colin Powell’s emails?

          • witnesstothecarnage

            It’s too late to convince me you are up to an adult conversation.

          • Maezeppa

            For me to participate in an adult conversation, adulthood is required of you.

          • witnesstothecarnage

            Case in point.

          • Maezeppa

            Quod erat demonstratum

          • witnesstothecarnage

            LOL… now, you are trying too hard to look smart!

            Compensating?

          • Maezeppa

            I never “try”, Sweetheart.

          • witnesstothecarnage

            LOL… yeah, you’re a genius.

          • Maezeppa

            Yes.

          • witnesstothecarnage

            Prove it. Say something smart.

            One single original thought.

        • Pat Orsban

          liberals always hate it when repubs act like liberals. Must be something in the koolaid.

          • Maezeppa

            Last time I looked, Thurmond was a Republican.

    • Zhanger

      First, what the hell is the Speaker of the Senate? Second, he did have standing to speak for his party as a bloc since he was in the Senate Democrat leadership, #3. And he has been tapped by your current Senate Democrat leader to be the next Senate Democrat leader, which means he will employ his tactics in the future. Further, his tactic was echoed by other Senate Democrats at the time such as Feinstein and Leahy. So McConnell is using a Schumer tactic employed in the past and sure to be employed in the future against Obama. Maybe McConnell is just being emotional.

      • Maezeppa

        Right – majority leader is what I meant. Thank you. Whatever Chuck Schumer may be in the future is irrelevant. In any case, I think the GOP will cave in because they’d rather have a moderate Justice picked by President Obama than lose entirely next year when they may not have a Senate majority. If there’s still a GOP after the convention. Getting my popcorn ready…

        • Zhanger

          So Schumer promising a Democrat Senate under his leadership will obstruct a Republican president is irrelevant to the present? And Schumer as the #3 Senate Democrat leader in 2007 calling for obstructing a Republican president is irrelevant to the present?

          How about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid obstructing 10 straight Bush judicial nominees in 2003 with a filibuster? How about Reid threatening a filibuster of Bush’s intended replacement for Rehnquist, Priscilla Owen, before he could even nominate her? How about the fact that of the 5 Supreme Court nominations that have been rejected or withdrawn in the last 50 years- all were Democrat Senate rejections of Republican nominees?

          How about you get your popcorn ready to do a little research for once in your life.

          • Maezeppa

            It’s not an apt comparison.

          • Zhanger

            Reid threatening to filibuster a Bush SCOTUS replacement before he even has a chance to nominate her is not an apt comparison? The future Senate Democrat leader calling for no confirmations of Republican nominees is not an apt comparison?

            How about Obama himself obstructing a Republican Supreme Court nominee when he filibustered Alito in 2006 while in the Senate? And then voting nay against both Bush nominees to SCOTUS?

            It doesn’t get any more apt. Obama himself obstructed a Republican president when he was in the Senate, and now that roles are reversed he’s crying about Republicans using the very tactics he used against them. Disgraceful.

          • Maezeppa

            I remember that. Actually, it was Republicans who suggested Democrats might “try to filibuster”. In truth, appalled Republican leaders clobbered Bush over his cray-cray nomination of a visibly embarrassed and eminently unqualified Harriet Miers.

          • Zhanger

            It wasn’t Miers. It was Priscilla Owen. Reid threatened a filibuster over her before Bush could even nominate because he’s an obstructionist.

          • Maezeppa

            Um. No. Because Owen is the catastrophe we predicted. Democrats and Republicans voted 81 to 18 to bring debate on Owen’s nomination to an end.

          • Zhanger

            Um. Yes. Harry Reid blocked Owen for 2 years along with 9 other Bush appointees until 7 members of his caucus abandoned his obstruction and ended his filibuster. Then 4 months later Reid threatened to filibuster her nomination to the Supreme Court.

            And where is your catastrophe hyperbole coming from? Don’t hurt your little head trying to do research for once in your life.

          • Maezeppa

            Um. Have you ever read the Constitution?

          • Zhanger

            Um. Yes. Point? You know just saying “Constitution” to something isn’t research, right?

          • Maezeppa

            I assume you’ve read it, yes? With respect to the relevant sections on nominees for vacant Justice seats?

          • Zhanger

            I see you haven’t read it. Because you’re unaware there’s no time limit in that section.

          • Maezeppa

            Bingo! But it does mandate the President take action.

          • Zhanger

            When was that ever disputed and what relevance does that have to the Senate having no constitutional time limit on its advice and consent?

          • Maezeppa

            Simple statutory construction invalidates your suggestion a Senate could indefinitely put off approving a judicial nomination. You are dead wrong on this. Democrats might oppose specific nominees based on them being incompetent like Thomas or activist like Owen. But we don’t just blanket refuse to consider any name. And you assholes started it. Remember – the old racist Thurmon was yours.

          • Zhanger

            Where is this statutory construction you’re talking about that imposes a time limit on the United States Senate? We should just go with the precedent established by the Democrat-controlled Senate in ’69-’70 when their obstruction of Abe Fortas’ replacement caused a 391 day vacancy. Oh look, that means your precious Obama won’t be president by that time. Too bad.

            It doesn’t matter if Thurmond started it. Democrats agreed with it. Until they didn’t agree with it when it’s inconvenient for them now. Sucks to have your own tricks used against you, doesn’t it?

          • Maezeppa

            You clearly don’t even know what the term ‘statutory construction’ means. Look it up and fix your question.

          • Zhanger

            It can’t be looked up because there is no statutory construction imposing a time limit on the Senate confirmations. Look it up and fix your toothless rebuttal.

          • Maezeppa

            And you are unaware of basic statutory construction that demands and requires the Senate to act in the absence of any specific language allowing it to be obstructionist when conducting the people’s business.

          • Zhanger

            Are you unaware that does not impose any time limit on the Senate? But if you want one, we can just go with the precedent established by the Democrat Senate in ’69-’70 when their obstruction of Abe Fortas’ replacement caused a 391 day vacancy.

          • Maezeppa

            Are you unaware that when interpreting the law, statutory construction demands and requires you to set aside any interpretation [like yours] that would create an absurd result which the Framers did not intend? The Constitution compels the legislature do both advise and consent. Your absurd, idiotic interpretation suggests it’s okay for the Senate to not do this.

          • Zhanger

            Are you unaware you can’t interpret a time limit into a constitutional clause containing no time limit? If you want a precedent to feel better, then we can go with the one established by a Democrat Senate in ’69-’70 that took 391 days to fill a vacancy. Neither the Constitution or precedent is on your side. Educate yourself before you start dropping concepts you don’t understand.

          • Maezeppa

            Your interpretation is absurd and extra-legal. There is a huge difference between a lengthy deliberation and NO deliberation. One is constitutional and the other is illegal. But obviously right wingers don’t respect the law.

          • Zhanger

            If no deliberation is illegal, why did Obama and Reid filibuster a vote on Alito? Why did Reid threaten a filibuster on Priscilla Owen before she could even be nominated? Why did Reid, Schumer, Leahy and Feinstein call for no deliberation under the Thurmond Rule?

            Obviously left wingers don’t respect the law.

          • Maezeppa

            Filibusters of a specific nominee is legal. Announcing a refusal to deliberate on any candidate is not legal. Duh.

          • Zhanger

            Filibusters are not deliberation. Filibusters are obstruction of deliberation. I hope this clears up your confusion.

          • Maezeppa

            No. Filibusters are a prolongation of deliberation that delays a vote. I hope this clears up your confusion.

          • Zhanger

            Every definition of filibuster refers to it as obstruction. You are correct that the point is to delay. Senate minorities use the filibuster to delay. Senate majorities don’t need to use the filibuster to delay. So if you support the Senate minority’s right to delay, surely you support the Senate majority’s right to delay. Lest you are a hypocrite. I hope this clears up your confusion.

          • Maezeppa

            Filibuster is legal. Delay is not denial and that is the difference. Your attempt to equate that with an illegal strategy is hypocrisy but considering how the right wing has great difficulty with how it in­ter­prets facts, it is not surprising.

          • Zhanger

            Your attempt to erase the precedent-setting “illegal strategy” by Reid, Leahy and Feinstein when they called for no deliberation under the Thurmond Rule in 2008 is hypocrisy.

          • Maezeppa

            Thurmond was a REPUBLICAN, Genius. Payback is a bitch, isn’t it. But no, Reid, Leahy and Feinstein never proposed anything illegal. Ever.

          • Zhanger

            When did I say Thurmond wasn’t a Republican? I said your Democrat leaders agreed with his rule, genius. Which is why McConnell is just agreeing with Reid and Leahy now. Payback is a bitch, isn’t it?

            And if you are going to deny the very words coming out of Leahy’s mouth here, then it just proves the “see no evil, hear no evil” ignorance you would rather wallow in than be confronted with facts that explode your misguided little world.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lQR1HaZFAI

            And Leahy in 2008- “Senator Thurmond, then in the Republican minority as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, instituted a policy to stall President Carter’s nominations. That policy, known as the ‘‘Thurmond Rule’’, was put in when the Republicans were in the minority. It is a rule that we still follow, and it will take effect very soon here.”
            https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2008-03-07/pdf/CREC-2008-03-07-pt1-PgS1729.pdf#page=3

          • Maezeppa

            No, they didn’t agree with the rule (which is not a rule), Brainiac. And no, McConnell is not “just agreeing” now. Republican snots started it, and keep it going. Unlike you Republicans, our Judiciary Committees ALWAYS deliberated.

          • Zhanger

            They did agree with the rule, brainiac.

          • Maezeppa

            They did not, Dumas. They are on the record saying the so-called Thurmond rule does not exist. And of course they are right.

          • Zhanger

            The upshot of this whole conversation is that I’ve forced you to confront the hypocrisy you’ve been fed by your Democrat leaders your whole life, and now I’ve reduced you to creating lies to hold on to the last grasp of your idealist little world which I’ve destroyed.

          • Maezeppa

            The upshot is you’ve made a fool of yourself. Republicans are filthy, lawless liars who believe the rules only apply to others.

          • Maezeppa

            No they did not, Brainiac. They are all quoted as correctly saying the rule doesn’t exist.

          • Maezeppa

            Except that wasn’t precedent-setting, Silly. Look up what “precedent” means.

          • Zhanger

            True, Thurmond set the precedent. Yet Democrats affirmed it. Can’t change the rules now that it’s inconvenient and they are powerless to Republicans dominating this weak president.

          • Maezeppa

            Actually, No. Democrats NEVER affirmed it. Ever. And you were especially stupid when you included Nancy Pelosi who isn’t and never has been part of the Senate.

          • Zhanger

            The last refuge of an idiot. Making up things said so she can finally feel like she scored a point. Fortunately I don’t have to make up stupid things you said to show your stupidity. What’s your “Speaker of the Senate” do again? Is that McConnell or Ryan, you idiot?

          • Maezeppa

            It would be the lazy dudebro Ryan. The sad turtle is the Senate leader for the time being.

          • Maezeppa

            “Speaker of the Senate” is a title given to the presiding officer of the Senate in a small number of jurisdictions and mainly among English-speaking countries. We refer to McConnell as the Majority Leader but the function is the same. Just so you know.

          • Zhanger

            Just so you know, when commenting on an American site about American politics it’s relevant to use American terms. Not the title used in Canada because you’re too ignorant to know the proper term.

          • Maezeppa

            I already acknowledged that oversight and corrected it. Regardless, that is his function and the essence of my comment was 100% correct. I’ll be back to laugh at you periodically as the Republican gambit to avoid complying with its obligation to deliberate blows up in their face. Funny, funny.

          • Zhanger

            How about you acknowledge and correct your idiotic statement that Nancy Pelosi is a senator too?

          • Maezeppa

            I never suggested Nancy Pelosi was a Senator. One of your fellow right wing nutjobs did that.

          • Zhanger

            I never suggested it either. You were especially stupid when you accused me of saying it because you’re too stupid to keep track of who you’re replying to.

          • Maezeppa

            I’m too smart to care about keeping track of you dolts.

          • Maezeppa

            By the way, Popsie, President Obama has enacted more legislation than LBG despite this whackadoodle congress.

          • Maezeppa

            Filibuster IS deliberation, Silly. Filibustering is legal but refusing any and all deliberation of any and all nominees is unconstitutional and therefore illegal. i hope this clears up your confusion.

          • Maezeppa

            I didn’t say the Democrats never use the lawful tools at their disposal Never have they blanket-threatened to reject any nominee. We reject specific nominees because Republicans are odious and their ideology is repugnant.

          • Zhanger

            Democrats have never blanket-threatened to reject any nominee? Are you unable to read? Looks like I’ll have to put this in audiovisual form for you.
            Patrick Leahy as the Democrat Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee said in 2004 and 2006 the Thurmond Rule should be instituted to blanket reject any nominee.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lQR1HaZFAI

            Chuck Schumer as the #3 Democrat leader and next #1 called for a blanket rejection of any nominee in July 2007.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnpjs45D7OY

            Harry Reid and Senate Democrats filibustering 10 straight Bush judicial nominees in 2003 sure seems like a blanket rejection of any nominee.

            Obama filibustering the right to even vote on Alito in 2006 and voting against both Bush Supreme Court nominees sure seems like a blanket rejection of any nominee.

            Republicans are just using the lawful tools Democrats showed them because Democrats are odious and their ideology is repugnant.

          • Maezeppa

            Thanks for proving my point that there has never been consensus on the part of Democrats to blanket-reject all Republican nominees.

          • Zhanger

            Thanks for proving you’re illiterate and deaf. I just gave you overwhelming proof of their consensus while you’re over there with your head buried in the sand babbling about a Speaker of the Senate.

          • Maezeppa

            Babbling? Interesting distorted emotional state you have, there.

          • Zhanger

            Yeah, babbling.

          • Maezeppa

            That’s not a blanket-threat to reject any nominee. That’s you trying to torture the facts to fit your own scenario. You lose.

          • Zhanger

            Lol, if you still can’t accept the blatant hypocrisy straight from the Democrat horses’ mouths, then that’s you torturing the facts to fit your own blissfully ignorant scenario, where Democrats engage in destructive politics and then look bewildered when they are powerless to their own tactics being shoved down their throats.

          • Maezeppa

            Sorry, Hon but Thurmon was a Republican and the so-called “rule” is inapplicable in the instant case. You do seem to believe the Republicans are dead wrong to say they will oppose every agenda item and duty the President of the United States is tasked with carrying out. Noted.

          • Zhanger

            I know Thurmond was a Republican. So did your Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy when he invoked the Thurmond Rule against Bush 3 times in 2004, 2006 and 2008 in the video above which you’re ignoring. Not only did he recognize its validity, he extended it to the spring of an election year. And your Senate Democrat leader Schumer extended it in July 2007 to 18 months before a presidency ends.

            So it is very applicable in this case. McConnell is suggesting using the Thurmond Rule for half the time Schumer did and you’re whining about Republicans opposing the duty of the president. Turnabout is fair play.

          • Maezeppa

            Democrats are within their right to object to specific nominees. What we have NEVER done is vote among ourselves to wholesale oppose 100% of a new President’s agenda even before that new President has taken office. A pox on your house – except it is my house too. You right wingers need to take a long hard look at the crumbling shell your part has become.

          • Zhanger

            Senate Democrats wholesale opposed 100% of Bush’s agenda in 2003 when they filibustered 10 straight judicial nominees. Reid, Leahy, Feinstein and Schumer called for instituting the Thurmond Rule in 2008 before a nomination was even made.

            A pox on your house, harpy.