Posted on 02/15/2016 5:27:22 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Sounds like pretty good advice, huh? Thankfully, Chuck Schumer has gone on record on this issue, insisting to the American Constitution Society that the Senate not only has the right but the duty to block Supreme Court nominees from a lame-duck President. Only with an extraordinary nominee should the Senate confirm such an appointment, Schumer insists (via Grabien and Gary Gross):
Of course Schumer aimed this at George W. Bush, but note that this speech took place in mid-2007, when Bush still had 18 months left in his presidency. That’s almost twice as much as Barack Obama has left in his own, and both presidents appointed two members to the court. Schumer complains about the supposed extremism of the two appointments, but Republicans can easily make the same complaint about both of Obama’s appointments. Gander, sauce … some assembly required.
The only differences between then and now are the party that controls the White House, and the small allowance Schumer holds out for potential cooperation. If an extraordinary candidate who could pass Democrats’ standards for “mainstream” came before the Senate for confirmation, then Schumer says they could consider approving him or her. Republicans are insisting that they won’t confirm anyone regardless of whom Obama appoints, which functionally amounts to the same threat Schumer made in mid-2007 but is a little harder to sell as a reasonable stand. If Obama nominated an Alito or Roberts, why would Republicans refuse to confirm him or her? Obama has no intention of replacing Scalia with another conservative, of course, but what if Obama agreed to confer with the Republican majority to give him three acceptable options for nominees and he appointed one of them? Would they still refuse to hold hearings?
The GOP would have been smarter to take the Schumer road, but it’s a little late for that now, and it really doesn’t make that much difference. Every time someone complains that Republicans are acting unconstitutionally, offer them Schumer’s 2007 declaration — and the American Constitution Society’s approving applause.
Its on tape. I have seen it. There will be no appontment until January 3 when the Senate adjourns and then we are total toast. Obama will screw us bad. It will cause pitched street battles and blood will be on his hands.
Its on tape. I have seen it. There will be no appontment until January 3 when the Senate adjourns and then we are total toast. Obama will screw us bad. It will cause pitched street battles and blood will be on his hands.
*******************************************************************************
Ahh....doesn’t the 115th Congress come INTO SESSION on January 3, 2017? Can’t they make sure there is close to zero time between the 114th & 115th Congresses?
..Mid-2007 Video: Chuck Schumer insists that lame-duck president should not get Supreme Court pick...
It’s do as I say and not as I do as always with fringe lunatic liberals. It’s SOP.
2. Dozens of videos showing Republicans making claims it's not the proper time to select a Supreme Court judge when there happens to be a Democrat President in office.
3. Dozens of videos showing Democrats making claims it is the proper time to select a Supreme Court judge when there happens to be a Democrat President in office.
4. Dozens of videos showing Republicans making claims it is the proper time to select a Supreme Court judge when there happens to be a Republican President in office.
Now show me something I haven't heard already.
Let’s not be too partisan. Go with Chuck on this one.
I've seen this...but is there a law that says the Senate MUST adjourn?
Bttt.
A good example here of ever shifting subjectively biased criteria for judging people and situations.
Since in 2007 the Democrats were afraid of Bush getting another Supreme Court appointment, they set down the criteria that being 18 months until the end of the president’s term, and the ideological balance of the court potentially changing,that there should be no more Bush appointees confirmed.
But that was then and this is now. Now the criteria have changed. Now that a good Democrat president is in the White House, he cannot be denied the right to appoint Supreme Court justices right up until noon on January 20,2017. To do otherwise infringes on the powers of the presidency.
The criteria are different depending on what criteria will advance the liberal agenda.
Whoever Obama nominates, the Senate Republicans will vote 100% to confirm.
If democrats didn’t have double standards, they would not have any standards at all.
Yes, they can adjourn without going into recess.
Nice find!
good question. I do not know. But that is the date the Senators term ends legally. we are in a narrow window here and assure you this horrible president will strike like a snake. There will be an adjournment. There is discussion that is different from a RECESS. But I just don’t know about that.
And yet, Schumer was the one behind not letting W do that.
Don’t think for a moment that pointing out a Democrat’s hypocrisy makes any difference whatsoever. The Party declares what the current truth is, and the truth is that which advances the Party.
lame-duck
not limp-d*ck?
ask Reggie, I guess.
My favorite quote from today: ‘ hey GOP, do what Obama does and ignore the constitution ‘
Do you know where I can find the video or voice tape of Obama and Hillary stating that the lame duck Bush should not be allowed to appoint a Supreme Court judge?
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.