Chuck Schumer: We'll Do Everything to Block Trump From Filling 'Stolen' Supreme Court Seat

[SirLinksALot]

SOURCE: WEEKLY STANDARD

URL: http://www.weeklystandard.com/schumer-well-do-everything-to-block-trump-from-filling-stolen-supreme-court-seat/article/2006122

by Michael Warren

Schumer will do his best to hold 'stolen' Supreme Court seat open. https://t.co/YPEJSCsji5— Maddow Blog (@MaddowBlog) January 4, 2017

The new minority leader in the Senate, New York Democrat Chuck Schumer, said Tuesday he would "absolutely" attempt to keep open the Supreme Court seat once held by the late justice Antonin Scalia. "It's hard for me to imagine a nominee that Donald Trump would choose that would get Republican support that we could support," Schumer told Rachel Maddow on MSNBC.

President Barack Obama has nominated Merrick Garland to fill the seat held by Scalia until the originalist justice died last Feburary. But Republicans, who controlled the Senate throughout 2016, declined to hold a hearing or a vote on Garland's nomination in light of the presidential election. Democrats cried foul, arguing President Obama's nominee deserved a fair hearing and a vote. Schumer himself criticized Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell for "isolating" himself by refusing to move forward on Garland's nomination.

On Tuesday, Maddow asked Schumer what Democrats could do once the nomination for the seat becomes the choice of Republican president Donald Trump. "If it is a fair statement that that was basically a stolen seat, so it isn't theirs to fill," Maddow said, as Schumer responded "yes" to her premise, "then in that case no nominee would be legitimate because that seat should have been filled by President Obama."

"You're right," Schumer said.

"So you would do your best to hold the seat open?" Maddow asked.

"Absolutely," Schumer replied.

Under rules instituted by the former Democratic leader Harry Reid, presidential nominees that demand the consent of the Senate do not require a 60-vote supermajority to override a filibuster threat and invoke cloture—that is, a nominee needs the support of just 51 senators to be confirmed. The exception is for Supreme Court nominees, who still require 60 votes to close debate before the Senate can vote on confirming that nominee. Unless Senate Republicans change the rules, Schumer's statement indicates the Democrats would filibuster nearly any nominee for the Scalia seat from Donald Trump.

[Jazzhead]

So let the SCOTUS stand at eight.   Deadlocks merely uphold the decisions of the Courts of Appeals.   There's no Constitutional crisis.   Then, when Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies,  let the SCOTUS decline to seven.   

Maybe we'll never fill another SCOTUS vacancy in my lifetime.  Fine with me, as long as the lower federal courts can be fully populated.   

[XenaLee]

So let the SCOTUS stand at eight.   Deadlocks merely uphold the decisions of the Courts of Appeals.   There's no Constitutional crisis.   Then, when Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies,  let the SCOTUS decline to seven.   

Maybe we'll never fill another SCOTUS vacancy in my lifetime.  Fine with me, as long as the lower federal courts can be fully populated.

Unless Senate Republicans change the rules, Schumer's statement indicates the Democrats would filibuster nearly any nominee for the Scalia seat from Donald Trump.

Then..... the Republicans should just change the rules.  Just like the Democrats always do, mid-game, to get their way.  Fair is fair.

[skeeter]

No doubt he will. Then, when the Ginsberg and Breyer seats open up in a few years whomever is president at the time won't matter - Schumer'll be claiming its only fair to replace a leftist with another leftist.

There's only one way to deal with these psycho ideologues - bare knuckle, tooth & nail to the death. Maybe I'll live long enough to actually see it.

[Sanguine]

So let the SCOTUS stand at eight.   Deadlocks merely uphold the decisions of the Courts of Appeals.   There's no Constitutional crisis.   Then, when Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies,  let the SCOTUS decline to seven.   

Maybe we'll never fill another SCOTUS vacancy in my lifetime.  Fine with me, as long as the lower federal courts can be fully populated.

I agree.  To heck with 'em.

[debrawiest]

Schumer. Another loud mouthed NYer.  Just what we need. 🙄

[Just_Victor]

Three months ago the democRATs assured us that the empty SCOTUS seat was the greatest threat to the Republic since Nazi Germany.

[Hondo69]

Three months ago the democRATs assured us that the empty SCOTUS seat was the greatest threat to the Republic since Nazi Germany.

We all remember the Do Nothing Congress advertising campaign, which was created by Obama puppeteer David Axelrod.  The public bought it and assumed it was the Republicans holding up progress, not the Democrats.  Nobody bothered to check the record.

I expect Trump will whip up a new tag line for the Democrats, such as Deadbeat Democrats.  Just like he did with Low Energy Bush, Crooked Hillary, etc.  Using these tags lines is an extremely effective tool and stick in the public's mind much more than anything else that happens in the media.

[andy58-in-nh]

The ideological balance of the Supreme Court would not change with the appointment of a new conservative jurist to replace the conservative Antonin Scalia.

Chuck Schumer of course understands this reality, but opts to continue the recent Democrat legacy of dishonest narratives and manufactured controversy.

He also undoubtedly knows that Democrat Congresses have refused to act on Republican judicial nominees, and vilified them at nomination hearings, mainly because he's been directly involved in doing so.   

[HonestJohn]

Three months ago the democRATs assured us that the empty SCOTUS seat was the greatest threat to the Republic since Nazi Germany.

It's a case of reaping what was sown.

If we are going to act a certain way, we shouldn't be offended when that behavior is returned unto us.

I argued we should have held the hearings and held an up-or-down vote.  We had the numbers so that the vote would go our way.  And it would have cleared the table so that there would not have been enough time to select another candidate and hold a new set of hearings.

Meaning this issue would have just died, instead of being ammunition for the left.

[pjohns]

Under rules instituted by the former Democratic leader Harry Reid, presidential nominees that demand the consent of the Senate do not require a 60-vote supermajority to override a filibuster threat and invoke cloture—that is, a nominee needs the support of just 51 senators to be confirmed. The exception is for Supreme Court nominees, who still require 60 votes to close debate before the Senate can vote on confirming that nominee. Unless Senate Republicans change the rules, Schumer's statement indicates the Democrats would filibuster nearly any nominee for the Scalia seat from Donald Trump.

My guess is that the "limited nuclear option," instituted by Harry Reid, will be extended to a full "nuclear option" by the GOP (to include Supreme Court selections).   

[Free Vulcan]

Aw, look at you Schmuckie Chuckie, aren't you so cute with your little lawyer meme. Why, the seat was STOLEN from us! It's our seat!

Didn't know SCOTUS seats were partisan, but at least we know how Schmuckie Chuckie and the Dems think, out there in the open. Of course it's now totally ok to hold open a seat for 4 years that they originally said was a travesty to hold open 9 months.

[kidd]

So let the SCOTUS stand at eight.   Deadlocks merely uphold the decisions of the Courts of Appeals.   There's no Constitutional crisis.   Then, when Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies,  let the SCOTUS decline to seven.   

Maybe we'll never fill another SCOTUS vacancy in my lifetime.  Fine with me, as long as the lower federal courts can be fully populated.

Sounds good. The Dems cannot filibuster judicial picks except for the SCOTUS...the Appellate Courts will be filled with conservatives.
And in 2018, it is likely that the Senate will have 60+ republicans

[Hondo69]

When the Republicans pull the pin on the nuclear option all the liberal's heads will explode.

I'm stocking up with popcorn now, great entertainment.  My buddy and I have a side bet, 1 beer, we'll get to see a spontaneous self combustion on live TV.

[INVAR]

Aw, look at you Schmuckie Chuckie, aren't you so cute with your little lawyer meme. Why, the seat was STOLEN from us! It's our seat!

Didn't know SCOTUS seats were partisan, but at least we know how Schmuckie Chuckie and the Dems think, our there in the open. Of course it's now totally ok to hold open a seat for 4 years that they originally said was a travesty to hold open 9 months.

A population wholly ignorant of the Constitution is easily beguiled by words such as 'stolen' to motivate them into fanatical belief that whatever the Collectivist Left has to say - is gospel truth and must be acted upon in the manner that the Leftist Oligarchy demands.

Which is why the Rule of Law is dead in this country - and the rule of whatever propaganda can be drummed up via social media is how we will now be governed.

[Smokin Joe]

Schumer. Another loud mouthed NYer.  Just what we need. 🙄

If the term limits Amendment passes, he's  done.

[jmyrlefuller]

Coordinating with Obama on recess-appointing Garland, perhaps?

[Sanguine]

Coordinating with Obama on recess-appointing Garland, perhaps?

Good point.

[Fishrrman]

"Unless Senate Republicans change the rules, Schumer's statement indicates the Democrats would filibuster nearly any nominee for the Scalia seat from Donald Trump."

Then change the rules to whatever is necessary.

The Republicans have the power to do this -- absolutely.
Whether they WILL do it or not -- the $64 question.
Use "the nuclear option" if necessary.

I've come to the conclusion that the Senate should be a "51-vote-majority" in ALL of its business. Just like in The House (majority wins).

I can live with that.

[cato potatoe]

My guess is that the "limited nuclear option," instituted by Harry Reid, will be extended to a full "nuclear option" by the GOP (to include Supreme Court selections).

To keep their base happy, the Democrats will howl no matter who is named.  I think Schumer knows McConnell will pull the pin if he needs to, and nobody outside of the beltway would mind.

[pjohns]

SOURCE: WEEKLY STANDARD

Under rules instituted by the former Democratic leader Harry Reid, presidential nominees that demand the consent of the Senate do not require a 60-vote supermajority to override a filibuster threat and invoke cloture—that is, a nominee needs the support of just 51 senators to be confirmed. The exception is for Supreme Court nominees, who still require 60 votes to close debate before the Senate can vote on confirming that nominee. Unless Senate Republicans change the rules, Schumer's statement indicates the Democrats would filibuster nearly any nominee for the Scalia seat from Donald Trump.

I am guessing that these rules will be changed.  (Harry Reid instituted the "limited nuclear option."  Why should the GOP be shy about modifying that just a little?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

So let the SCOTUS stand at eight.   Deadlocks merely uphold the decisions of the Courts of Appeals.   There's no Constitutional crisis.   Then, when Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies,  let the SCOTUS decline to seven.   

Maybe we'll never fill another SCOTUS vacancy in my lifetime.  Fine with me, as long as the lower federal courts can be fully populated.

May I add "with qualified Constitutional Scholars" at he end of your last sentence?

I do not support just placing anyone in any seat that is open.

[pjohns]

It's a case of reaping what was sown.

Well, not exactly.

Democrats wished to move the High Court a bit to the left, through the nomination of the centrist, Merrick Garland.

Republicans, on the other hand, wish to nominate someone who is an originalist--a Constitutional conservative--just as the late Antonin Scalia was.

The latter move would not change the direction of the Court, at all. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Democrats wished to move the High Court a bit to the left, through the nomination of the centrist, Merrick Garland.

A 'centrist' who rules that the EPA does not need to consider cost as a factor in its rulings?

Who ruled in favor of unions 18 of 22 times in cases before the NLRB and not for companies?

Who ruled that the Clinton administration can store records of firearm purchases?

“A cursory examination of his record points to a judge who nearly always sides with regulators, labor unions and trial lawyers at the expense of small businesses,” Juanita Duggan, president of the National Federation of Independent Business, said in a statement. “That’s very discouraging.”

“This is probably the most anti-gun Supreme Court nomination in decades,” said Brian Rogers, executive director of America Rising Squared, a conservative group conducting opposition research on Judge Garland.

The Dems and the media hyped Garland as a moderate, but do not let that fool you.  He is a lib.

[Mom MD]

Then..... the Republicans should just change the rules.  Just like the Democrats always do, mid-game, to get their way.  Fair is fair.

If schumer will do everything to block nominees, the majority should do everything to pass them along.  Reid's nuclear option should come right back in their face.  As their sainted leader says, elections have consequences.  A lot of conservatives I know held their nose and voted for Trump over SCOTUS.  He had better not mess it up.  We have to use the same tools that the liberals use or we are totally lost.