Schumer in 2007: Don't confirm any Bush Supreme Court nominee

Dec 2014
17,683
6,410
The Milky Way
Schumer spoke with the sense of the Democrat Senate majority. He isn't the kind to go out their on a limb all by himself.
 

HayJenn

Former Staff
Jul 2014
72,300
63,351
CA
Yes it is different because it never happened..

Schumer's argument was not one of timing and the closeness of the presidential election. He just didn't think much of either of President Bush's picks. Schumer's recommendation stemmed from his feeling that the Senate had insufficient information when it confirmed his two picks, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, to the court.

"It appears we were not given the most accurate picture of the nominees we confirmed," Schumer said. "We were presented a misleading portrait." He accused both justices of making decisions that "flouted precedent" and, essentially, legislating from the bench.

He argued that Senate had to "engage in conjecture" to understand the nominees' way of thinking and method of reasoning because their records were thin.

What Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer used to say about judicial nominees - CBS News
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people

Macduff

Moderator
Apr 2010
97,877
34,534
Pittsburgh, PA
Yes it is different because it never happened..

Schumer's argument was not one of timing and the closeness of the presidential election. He just didn't think much of either of President Bush's picks. Schumer's recommendation stemmed from his feeling that the Senate had insufficient information when it confirmed his two picks, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, to the court.

"It appears we were not given the most accurate picture of the nominees we confirmed," Schumer said. "We were presented a misleading portrait." He accused both justices of making decisions that "flouted precedent" and, essentially, legislating from the bench.

He argued that Senate had to "engage in conjecture" to understand the nominees' way of thinking and method of reasoning because their records were thin.

What Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer used to say about judicial nominees - CBS News
Fine. Then Republicans can "not think much" of the Obama picks.
 

Rorschach

Former Staff
Aug 2012
53,875
20,202
america
Fine. Then Republicans can "not think much" of the Obama picks.
EXACTLY!

In fact, the GOP should be rounding up old footage, news reports, and Congressional records, in order to mimic Democrats almost word for word.

(Except that the GOP "Litmus Test" should be 2nd Amendment Rights, in lieu of the Democrat's "Abortion Litmus Test...")

Fair, is, after all....fair......
 

HayJenn

Former Staff
Jul 2014
72,300
63,351
CA
Fine. Then Republicans can "not think much" of the Obama picks.
I'm pretty sure they already have..

Judge Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed by the Senate in a 68-to-31 vote on her nomination to the Supreme Court. All Democrats and independents present voted yes (Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who has been battling cancer, was not present for the vote). They were joined by 9 of the 40, or 23 percent of the Republicans in the Senate. This is less than the proportion of Democrats and independents that voted for John G. Roberts Jr. — half of Democrats and independents supported his nomination to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 2005. But it is more than the proportion that voted for Samuel Alito in 2006 — just 9 percent of Democrats and independents supported his nomination to the Supreme Court. Below are details on how Republicans voted on Judge Sotomayor.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/07/31/us/politics/0731-sotomayor-vote.html?_r=0
 

Macduff

Moderator
Apr 2010
97,877
34,534
Pittsburgh, PA
I'm pretty sure they already have..

Judge Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed by the Senate in a 68-to-31 vote on her nomination to the Supreme Court. All Democrats and independents present voted yes (Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who has been battling cancer, was not present for the vote). They were joined by 9 of the 40, or 23 percent of the Republicans in the Senate. This is less than the proportion of Democrats and independents that voted for John G. Roberts Jr. — half of Democrats and independents supported his nomination to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 2005. But it is more than the proportion that voted for Samuel Alito in 2006 — just 9 percent of Democrats and independents supported his nomination to the Supreme Court. Below are details on how Republicans voted on Judge Sotomayor.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/07/31/us/politics/0731-sotomayor-vote.html?_r=0
That is going to be a Sunday picnic compared to what's coming up. Democrats turned SCOTUS nomination hearings into a travest with the Bork and Thomas hearings. They were complete obstructionists for judicial nominations during the Bush Administration. We all know what's at stake here. Democrats want their nice little liberal block of the court that always goes left. Republicans want some sensible voices like Scalia's. After the King v Burwell decision where the court said that the law was whatever the government decided it said, even going against the wording of the law itself; you had to know the next nomination was going to get ugly. I can't wait. I hope they send the first couple back out in bags.
 
Mar 2015
14,191
6,834
San Diego, California
It was wrong then and its wrong now. The president and congress have a constitutional obligation to appoint supreme court justices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people

Amelia

Former Staff
Jun 2014
45,965
27,880
Wisconsin

But, but, but, but ... the obstruction Obama faced was unprecedented and racist.


Obama did some serious dancing yesterday when asked about his opposition to qualified nominees. I laughed out loud at the part where he said that the main thing was that Alito was eventually seated and implied that his posturing was purely for political effect and he knew it wouldn't matter and that made it okay.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

HayJenn

Former Staff
Jul 2014
72,300
63,351
CA
That is going to be a Sunday picnic compared to what's coming up. Democrats turned SCOTUS nomination hearings into a travest with the Bork and Thomas hearings. They were complete obstructionists for judicial nominations during the Bush Administration. We all know what's at stake here. Democrats want their nice little liberal block of the court that always goes left. Republicans want some sensible voices like Scalia's. After the King v Burwell decision where the court said that the law was whatever the government decided it said, even going against the wording of the law itself; you had to know the next nomination was going to get ugly. I can't wait. I hope they send the first couple back out in bags.
Bork was a bi-partisan effort (6 GOP senator voted nay - 3 D vote yea), as it was Thomas (yes some D senators actually voted to confirm him - 7 by my count).

So spin this all you want - there is no precedent at all for the GOP is currently proposing.

And no, there wasn't complete obstruction during the Bush years (I posted a link in another thread to show that was simply not true)

Look I know conservatives are bummed at the thought of losing a majority that they have held for almost 40 years. But if the GOP does not do this the right way, the optics are going to terrible for them.