Skip to comments.Senator Schumer’s Hypocritical Protest
Posted on 04/12/2005 3:33:00 PM PDT by RWR8189
Contact: Tracey Schmitt
Senator Schumers unequivocal support for Democratic efforts to filibuster qualified judicial nominees is nothing more than partisan politicking. When President Clinton sent a nominee to the Senate, Senator Schumer cited the Senates Constitutional mandate to provide a vote. Its disappointing that Senator Schumers correct interpretation of the Constitution only applies when it suits his political agenda.
- Tracey Schmitt, Press Secretary
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMERS (D-NY) HYPOCRISY ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
During Clinton Administration, Schumer Believed Filibustering Judicial Nominations Indefinitely Was Not Right:
In 2000, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) Said Government Does Not Fulfill Its Constitutional Mandate When Judicial Nominees Do Not Receive A Vote. The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue before us, not the qualifications of judges, which we can always debate. The problem is it takes so long for us to debate those qualifications. It is an example of government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees. (Sen. Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, 3/7/00, p. S1211)
Schumer In 2000: [W]e Are Charged With Voting On The Nominees. The Constitution Does Not Say If The Congress Is Controlled By A Different Party Than The President There Shall Be No Judges Chosen. (Senator Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, 3/7/00, p. S1211)
During Bush Administration, Schumer Has Repeatedly Voted To Block Highly Qualified Bush Judges:
In The 108th Congress Schumer Voted Against All Cloture Votes On Judicial Nominees, A Total Of Twenty Votes. (CQ Vote #40: Motion Rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 3/6/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #53: Motion Rejected 55-42: R 51-0; D 4-41; I 0-1, 3/13/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #56: Motion Rejected 55-45: R 51-0; D 4-44; I 0-1, 3/18/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #114: Motion Rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 4/2/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #137: Motion Rejected 52-44: R 50-0; D 2-43; I 0-1, 5/1/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #140: Motion Rejected 52-39: R 49-0; D 3-38; I 0-1, 5/5/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #143: Motion Rejected 54-43: R 50-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 5/8/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #144: Motion Rejected 52-45: R 50-0; D 2-44; I 0-1, 5/8/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #308: Motion Rejected 53-43: R 51-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 7/29/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #312: Motion Rejected 55-43: R 51-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 7/30/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #316: Motion Rejected 53-44: R 51-0; D 2-44; I 0-0, 7/31/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #419: Motion Rejected 54-43: R 51-0; D 2-43; I 1-0, 10/30/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #441: Motion Rejected 51-43: R 49-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 11/6/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #450: Motion Rejected 53-42: R 51-0; D 2-41; I 0-1, 11/14/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #451: Motion Rejected 53-43: R 51-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 11/14/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #452: Motion Rejected 53-43: R 51-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 11/14/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #158: Motion Rejected 53-44: R 51-0; D 2-43; I 0-1, 7/20/04, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #160: Motion Rejected 52-46: R 51-0; D 1-45; I 0-1, 7/22/04, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #161: Motion Rejected 54-44: R 51-0; D 3-43; I 0-1, 7/22/04, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote #162: Motion Rejected 53-44: R 50-0; D 3-43; I 0-1, 7/22/04, Schumer Voted Nay)
As DSCC Chair, Schumer Has Sent Out Fundraising Emails Vowing To Fight The Bush Administration Over The Appointment Of Right-Wing Judges. In a fundraising e-mail, DSCC chair Chuck Schumer (D) writes: Pres. Bush and Karl Rove are already working on a plan to attack Senate Dems. With increased majorities, they know they can appoint right-wing judges at will, pass legislation to restrict a womans right to choose, and rollback our precious environmental protections. GOPers have already drawn up a list of targets. And number one on that list is Sen. Maria Cantwell (D). (Washington: Yeah, The GOP Might Be Planning To Do All Of, The Hotline, 3/10/05)
NY is home to the most destructive, crooked, and evil members of the US Senate, Hitler-y and this steaming pile of horse feces.
The RNC has got to do a better job than issuing bland press releases that nobody won't read.
Besides Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman, I can't think of a half-way decent Democrat senator. And Zell is much better than most Republicans.
If the Democrats canont read the Constitution that's there problem. The bottom line is the bottom line and that's wha the Constitution says.
The Founders gave these numbnuts in Congress an owners manual for the country. They might think about reading that manual before they try to drive the country anywhere.
Whenever Schumer opens his piehole about the "judicial mainstream," where is the Republican response? Is there ever one? The Dems have designated Putzy Schumer to take on the Pres' judicial nominations; whom have the Republicans designated to take on Schumer? [...sound of crickets...]
This is an unfair assault on the rights of a person to change their mind, to suit their ever changing convictions, or lack tehreof, and to meet the political mood of the moment. How can we be expected to elect people who have no convictions if we keep reminding them that what they say makes no sense at all?
< end nonsensical sarcastic rant
You certainly don't expect honesty or integrity from Chuckie Schmuckie, do you?
Tempest in a teapot!
(Click on link for more)
Memo to Senator Warner: The Left wants to filibuster Supreme Court nominees. Is that serious enough for you?
With both Nan Aron and Ralph Neas on the record as urging the Senate Democrats to use the filibuster to defeat Supreme Court nominees they don't like --Aron and Neas specifically named Judges Luttig, McConnell, and Roberts-- the stakes are dramatically raised in the coming showdown over the move to end the filibuster.
Thus the Wall Street Journal's article this morning (subscription required) is alarming as it identifies a seventh Republican senator who is wobbly: New Hampshire's John Sununu. Sununu joins Senators Chafee, Collins, Hagel, McCain, Snow and Warner as in the category of "undecided." Senator Warner offered this comment:
"'I tend to be a traditionalist, and the right of unlimited debate has been a hallmark of the Senate since its inception,'" said Virginia Sen. John Warner, a 27-year veteran who has been researching previous political showdowns over court appointments including President Franklin D. Roosevelt's attempt to stack the Supreme Court. Mr. Warner says he hasn't made up his mind on the issue, but said that he isn't 'persuaded that the seriousness of the problem merits such an extraordinary solution.'"
Perhaps someone could point out to Senator Warner that the left intends to broaden the filibuster's abuse to cover ideological opposition to Supreme Court nominees, thus rewriting the "advice and consent" provision of the Constitution to include a 60% provision. Is a sleeper amendment to the Constitution serious enough for the the Senator?
The Journal's reporting is also extraordinarily bad on this topic. Consider this paragraph:
"Both sides share blame for the escalating tensions. President Bush has largely ignored the tradition of consulting with home-state senators before settling on judicial nominees. Democrats, prodded by their activist wing, have become more aggressive in challenging appellate-court nominees -- although they haven't blocked most of Mr. Bush's judicial nominations. More than 200 of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees have been appointed; 10 have been contested. And Republicans who accuse their adversaries of unprecedented behavior tiptoe past their own history of using their majority status to defeat many of President Clinton's judicial nominations at the committee level."
Memo to WSJ: There is no "tradition" of consulting home-state senators of the opposite party, even though dopes like Joe Biden have recovered memories of such a process in the Reagan years. (Ask Ed Meese or Fred Fielding if Ronald Reagan sought approval for his circuit court appointees from Democrats, or any Republican senator if Clinton sought approval from Republicans.) Also note that the Journal fails to mention that in the 217 year history of the Senate there was never a filibuster of a circuit court nominee prior to 2003, and that the 200+ approvals is a red-herring talking point, as Bush has only had 66 or so appellate court vacancies to fill, and his approval rate there is close to 50%, whereas Bill Clinton got 100% of his first term nominees approved, though some of those approvals came early in his second term. And yes, the Republicans have used their majority status to defeat Democratic nominees in committee in the past, as Democrats did as well, as recently as 2001-2002. This isn't about majority rule in the Senate. It is about abuse of cloture to change the constitutional process away from majority rule. Try using these charts for your next piece, and consult ConfirmThem before recycling Democratic talking points.
LegalFiction has some interesting takes from the left on the debate, but none of them confront the unprecedented nature of the abuse of cloture by a minority. That's because there is no defense other than a results-oriented one. "But again," Legal Fiction writes, I'm anti-filibuster across the board. If Democrats don't want Ayatollah bin Dobson picking their judiciary, they should start winning elections." (Of course, they won't start winning elections so long as they and their advisers refer to James Dobson as "Ayatollah bin Dobson" even in passing and even in jest.).
The political context is stark. If the GOP loses this battle, a great deal of justified bitterness will infect its base with dire consequences for 2006 and beyond.
While Senator Kyl has cautioned against assuming the lists of wobbly senators are accurate, Nan Aron cited six of the seven names above as her targets for turning against the GOP, so I think they and Senator Sununu should hear from Republicans as to their strength of feeling on the issue. Deserting the party on this vote seems to me to be a career-ender in terms of national ticket ambitions, and possibly in the case of Senators Chafee and Sununu, re-election in trending-blue states. Indeed, the entire NRSC apparatus has to fear a collapse in small donor support if the filibuster is not broken.
The Congressional switchboard is 202-225-3121. E-mails for all senators are available here.
Later today I will post the transcript of the Ralph Neas interview here, and then the Nan Aron interview in the same place as soon as it is available. They are both full of rhetorical-sleight-of-hand of the sort that may confuse some listeners, but political reporters ought to know better.
The transcript of my interview with Ralph Neas from April 1 is available here and yesterday's interview with Nan Aron is here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.