Schumerism

Opinion Journal ^ | Nov. 8, 2003 | Brian C. Anderson

[Bernard Marx]

Democrats subvert the Constitution through judicial filibusters.

Everyone has commented on the unprecedented filibuster campaign against President Bush's appellate court nominees--the latest of whom is likely to be Justice Janice Rogers Brown, a black veteran of California's Supreme Court. What hasn't sufficiently been underscored is that the filibusters rest on a novel jurisprudential conceit: call it "Schumerism," after Chuck Schumer, the New York senator who is its most strident proponent.

[Bernard Marx]

In light of today's defeat of the cloture vote in the Senate, I'm surprised Freepers have paid so little attention to Charles Schumer's filibuster tactics. I consider this man to be among the top 2 or 3 most dangerous liberals in the country and he's outdone himself this time with megalomanical chutzpah. He's actually trying to redefine conservative ideas like the pro-life movement, anti-affirmative action and school vouchers as "extremist," and using that definiton to bar anyone holding them from the Federal Judiciary. This is outrageous!

The notion that these positions are "out of the mainstream," as he alleges, is demonstrably untrue. Yet somehow he is able to move the ball forward time after time because we don't have enough votes in the Senate to change the rules of invoke cloture.

Defeating Schumerism seems to me the most important political task we could take on. If he wins, we lose everything we believe in. There are some great minds out there in Freeperland. We need all the help we can get to defeat Schumerism.

[RKV]

"build a filibuster-proof majority and restore sanity"

There's a goal I can get behind.

[johnb838]

Up until this administration, the liberals would oppose conservative judicial appointees on grounds of their views on abortion, poverty pimping, etc. But they had to be careful to claim that they did not have a "litmus test" for the nominee's position on specific issues. The difference today is that they no longer even pay lip service to the traditional qualifications.

It is funny too, because the liberals had done pretty well by the "conservatives" that the Republican presidents had appointed. These "conservatives" had a funny way of changing, chameleon-like into liberals once they were safe and untouchable on the Federal bench. Evil always tends to overreach itself eventually, dropping the mask, alerting the Republic, and causing widespread opposition.

This issue is just one of many on which, I believe (hope) the American public sees through these scoundrels that have hijacked the democrat party.

[jonno]

bump

[johnb838]

I just realized this morning that Schumer has no hair. He has a little comb-over in the front that makes it look like he has hair, but if he turns around it's clear that he is bald as a cue ball on top. It's a facade, which says a lot about the rest of the man.

[petercooper]

he's packing on the weight also

[thoughtomator]

Schumer will lose his seat in 2004.

[11th_VA]

Schumer will lose his seat in 2004

To who ???

[Bernard Marx]

Care to explain how you arrived at that conclusion?

Check out: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1012664/posts

It says, astonishingly to me, that:

"A recent poll conducted by Quinnipiac College found that Mr. Schumer enjoyed a higher level of support among Republicans (47 percent said they approve of him, while 35 said they do not) than Gov. George E. Pataki, a three-term Republican incumbent, did among Democrats (36 percent said they approve of him, while 52 percent said they do not)."

[BigSkyFreeper]

He's actually trying to redefine conservative ideas like the pro-life movement, anti-affirmative action and school vouchers as "extremist," and using that definiton to bar anyone holding them from the Federal Judiciary. This is outrageous!

His definition is broad-brushed. He paints anyone who carries simple Conservative values contrary to his flaming liberal ones, as extreme. Say what you want about Orrin Hatch, he had a right to be offended and outraged when Schumer smirked and essentially called Conservatives lemons.

[thoughtomator]

I arrived at that conclusion because there is too much evidence of Schumer's mischiefmaking for him to dodge. The only reason he was elected in the first place was that people were tired of D'Amato's corruption and wanted a change. But rather than the idealist he presented himself as, Schumer has turned out to be an ideologue nearly unmatched in the Senate. New York may lean to the Democrats, but there is a limit as to what it will put up with, and Schumer has long since passed that limit.

The only way he survives is if the GOP cooperates with him by putting up a pathetically weak candidate. If Guiliani steps into the race, it won't even be close.

[Bernard Marx]

The only way he survives is if the GOP cooperates with him by putting up a pathetically weak candidate. If Guiliani steps into the race, it won't even be close.

I agree that if Guiliani runs it could happen your way. When I heard him on Hannity's radio show he seemed to be more interested in Hillary's seat, although who knows how it could shake out.

If you followed my link you might have noted Schumer's already piled up an $18 million campaign fund while there's not yet a pubbie opponent, weak or otherwise. I think Guiliani's the only person who can make your prediction come true.

[Rummyfan]

While the thought is heartwarming, no one has even announced that they are running on the Republican side. I'd even take any other DEMOCRAT over Up-Chuck.

[Bernard Marx]

Nightside bump.