"Senator Schumer's 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 Senate's 'Constitutional mandate' to provide a vote. It's disappointing that Senator Schumer's correct interpretation of the Constitution only applies when it suits his political agenda." -- Tracey Schmitt, Press Secretary
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER'S (D-N.Y.) HYPOCRISY ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
During Clinton Administration, Schumer Believed Filibustering Judicial Nominations Indefinitely Was Not Right:
In 2000, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) 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 No. 40: Motion Rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 3/6/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote No. 53: Motion Rejected 55-42: R 51-0; D 4-41; I 0-1, 3/13/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote No. 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 No. 137: Motion Rejected 52- 44: R 50-0; D 2-43; I 0-1, 5/1/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote No. 140: Motion Rejected 52-39: R 49-0; D 3-38; I 0-1, 5/5/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote No. 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 No. 308: Motion Rejected 53-43: R 51-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 7/29/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote No. 312: Motion Rejected 55- 43: R 51-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 7/30/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote No. 316: Motion Rejected 53-44: R 51-0; D 2-44; I 0-0, 7/31/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote No. 419: Motion Rejected 54-43: R 51- 0; D 2-43; I 1-0, 10/30/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote No. 441: Motion Rejected 51-43: R 49-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 11/6/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote No. 450: Motion Rejected 53-42: R 51-0; D 2- 41; I 0-1, 11/14/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote No. 451: Motion Rejected 53-43: R 51-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 11/14/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote No. 452: Motion Rejected 53-43: R 51-0; D 2-42; I 0- 1, 11/14/03, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote No. 158: Motion Rejected 53-44: R 51-0; D 2-43; I 0-1, 7/20/04, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote No. 160: Motion Rejected 52-46: R 51-0; D 1-45; I 0-1, 7/22/04, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote No. 161: Motion Rejected 54-44: R 51- 0; D 3-43; I 0-1, 7/22/04, Schumer Voted Nay; CQ Vote No. 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 woman's 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)
Mark's Remarks
Look, all the Dims are hypocrites, and they are twisting the Constitution (imagine my shock and surprise...). There is no 200 year history, as the
The Dims are out saying that Republicans want to outlaw the fillibuster. That is simply not true, and it would not be Constitutional, either. What the Republicans want to do, at least those with the guts (unfortunately, most of these are not Senators), is to take a stand and protect the Constitution. Congress has a duty to advise and consent on Presidential nominees. This whole rule of a supermajority is hindering that power. No one is saying take away the debate, or even the fillibuster. However, let's use the fillibuster on what it was designed for: legislation. In fact, I think we should make those who want to fillibuster stand up and continue talking--I am sick of the "pretend" fillibusters that quash legislation without the Senators making any effort-ON BOTH SIDES. Make those who dissent stand and debate for hours and hours on end. Make the Senators work again.
That is all I ask.
Oh yeah, and that we like fill up some of these judges seats.
Oh, and could we like actually read what is in the Constitution and in Congressional History before we twist and stab at it???? Please?
