Schumer: Trump's Court Nominees List, 'We Will Fight It All the Way'

[rangerrebew]

Schumer: Trump's Court Nominees List, 'We Will Fight It All the Way'

(CNSNews.com [1]) -- Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that when it comes to the list of potential Supreme Court nominees prepared by the Federalist Society for President Donald Trump, the Democrats "will fight it all the way."

Schumer added that "we must not" have another "hard right Supreme Court nominee who won't follow precedent." Schumer made his remarks at a press conference about the Supreme Court's Sept. 27 decision, which said workers who are not part of the union do not have to pay fees to fund collective bargaining [2].
 
Source URL: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/jonathan-mizrahi/schumer-trumps-list-court-nominees-we-will-fight-it-all-way

[rangerrebew]

Is this supposed to be a new strategy, fighting Trump on everything?  If Trump endorsed making the democrat party twice as large, they would oppose him and cut off their noses to spite their faces.

[jmyrlefuller]

"hard right Supreme Court nominee who won't follow precedent."

After all those hard-left Supreme Court justices who didn't follow precedent in the 1960s and early 1970s, that barn door is already wide open.

[goatprairie]

In today's NRO David French recalled the philosophy of liberal/leftist law professors he knew from his past.  First, they determined how they personally felt about a particular case i.e. was it liberal enough, and then they fit the constitution to their determination the original intent of the constitution be damned.
Because a great majority (or most) liberal judges believe in the "living constitution"  which means NO!!! constitution. Whatever promotes the liberal agenda is all they care about. They will twist the words of the constitution to justify their decisions or just make them up out of thin air.
However, many of the things libs are worried about losing i.e abortion "rights" and homosexual "marriage" will most likely not occur.  At worst they'd go down to the states. But SC might very likely not even reconsider those things unless forced to. It's not like the SC starts out with a list of things they want to enact or get rid of.  They have to have stuff presented to them.  Even then it's not for sure they'd get rid of Roe V. Wade or Obergefell.

[aligncare]

During the press conference Chuck Schumer rolled out the biennial moving of the goalposts as he argued for no senate confirmation hearings on a Kennedy replacement until after the midterms, citing Merrick Garland.

Chuck said last year the Republican majority refused to hold hearings on Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland after the death of Antonin Scalia and that republicans insisted the next elected president should fill the vacancy.

So now the senate should wait before scheduling a vote and let the voters in November weigh in, he argued.

Nice try, Chuck. The difference then was a national presidential election and an entire population voting for one office. Besides, with a republican majority in the senate, McConnell, by not scheduling a vote, was simply sparing Garland the embarrassment of a no vote. And so the nomination died in committee. Meanwhile support for Trump was growing, a clear sign which way voters wanted to go.

But these November elections coming up are for district and state offices that reflect only portions of voters. It’s apples and oranges. What we have here is the president’s prerogative to select a nominee that reflects his own judicial philosophy versus a few ceremonial advise and consent votes. Confirmation hearings are largely a formality anyway.

[skeeter]

Schumer has never heard of Dred Scott.

[Jazzhead]

Thank goodness for Harry Reid.   

[skeeter]

During the press conference Chuck Schumer rolled out the biennial moving of the goalposts as he argued for no senate confirmation hearings on a Kennedy replacement until after the midterms, citing Merrick Garland.

Chuck said last year the Republican majority refused to hold hearings on Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland after the death of Antonin Scalia and that republicans insisted the next elected president should fill the vacancy.

So now the senate should wait before scheduling a vote and let the voters in November weigh in, he argued.

Nice try, Chuck. The difference then was a national presidential election and an entire population voting for one office. Besides, with a republican majority in the senate, McConnell, by not scheduling a vote, was simply sparing Garland the embarrassment of a no vote. And so the nomination died in committee. Meanwhile support for Trump was growing, a clear sign which way voters wanted to go.

But these November elections coming up are for district and state offices that reflect only portions of voters. It’s apples and oranges. What we have here is the president’s prerogative to select a nominee that reflects his own judicial philosophy versus a few ceremonial advise and consent votes. Confirmation hearings are largely a formality anyway.

Remember how the democrats in the past stressed the imperative of replacing liberal justices with like minded candidates?

The American people want continuity & balance, they said.

Then they try to replace solid constitutionalist Scalia with Merrick Garland, who is described by Nina Totenberg as a 'moderate liberal'.

BTW listen for them to trot out this same phony argument in the next few months.