Schumer on SCOTUS: I’m the decider now
posted at 12:39 pm on November 15, 2006 by Allahpundit
He voted against Janice Rogers Brown’s appointment to the D.C. Circuit, so if you were thinking about her for the next vacancy, think again.
As with immigration, now that the president’s got a Democratic majority he’s free to indulge his dumbest leftist instincts.
God only knows what that’ll mean.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I’ll say it again, just like Linconl did with Chase, he should nominate Hillary Clinton! On difference is, Chase was approved. Do you think Hillary would make it out of Committee? I don’t know but it would be fun to watch.
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on November 15, 2006 at 12:52 PM
I have to learn to type AND spell!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on November 15, 2006 at 12:53 PM
So much for strict constructionists. But hey, at least Bush can be happy that he got his amnesty, right?
thirteen28 on November 15, 2006 at 1:01 PM
thirteen28, President Bush doesn’t want amnesty and he’s said so repeatedly.
As for Schumer, well, he talks a big game that’s supposed to intimidate us, but I’m not buying it. He couldn’t be worse than Leahy.
Face it, people, even when we had a supposed majority in the Senate, we didn’t vote like or act like it, hence why the GOP got the spanking we deserved last week.
Jen the Neocon on November 15, 2006 at 1:07 PM
He’s a decider, not a
divideruniter.SouthernGent on November 15, 2006 at 1:22 PM
Two words: Paul Clement.
Two more words: [Bleep] Schumer.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on November 15, 2006 at 1:24 PM
Translation:
Talk about being spoiled. You’re the kid that ruined Christmas every year when your parents gave you 56 presents instead of 58, right?
Grebrook on November 15, 2006 at 1:26 PM
He just doesn’t call it amnesty. But what he wants it tantamount to it. And what he doesn’t want is enforcment of the borders.
His actions (or lack thereof) speak much louder than his words on the issue.
However, your last paragraph is dead on.
thirteen28 on November 15, 2006 at 1:39 PM
Grow up Grebrook.
Sorry for feeding trolls, but he chirped the right song this time.
Bashed gays? Whatever. Defended marriage? Check.
Tried to stop inter-state (huh?) abortions? Look, I’d get put under a prison if I took one of my students across the state lines to get an Advil without parental consent, but I can haul her over there to help her kill an unborn baby. Have your moral high ground there, buddy, it’s all yours.
Whatever. Defended life? Check.
I tire of laying down smack on your petty arguments.
y2church
PS I’ve been swimming in the Gulf with lots of “brown people” before, but I think they went there voluntarily. If we’d thrown all the aforementioned folks into inner city slums on the government’s dime, then we’d be liberals.
y2church on November 15, 2006 at 1:39 PM
If it quacks like amnesty and waddles like amnesty,….
steveegg on November 15, 2006 at 1:41 PM
oooh, oooh, don’t forget “smells like amnesty”
Yep…. it’s amnesty!
y2church on November 15, 2006 at 1:42 PM
It’s not amnesty. And the new Dim House and Senate have yet to give us a plan.
Think what you like, but I swear the folks who voted D last week voted for border controls and more troops/harder fought war in Iraq.
I know that’s not what the Ds were offering, but that’s what the sheeple thought they were gonna get and maybe they were right.
They say the American people rarely get it wrong, at least not for long.
Jen the Neocon on November 15, 2006 at 1:45 PM
I didn’t want to go into the bodily functions, as they’re pretty much consistent throughout the political kingdom as they are throughout the animal kingdom.
steveegg on November 15, 2006 at 1:45 PM
re: Grebrook
It is one thing to let liberals post comments, but liberal TROLLS? They bring nothing of value to the site and just try to bring it down with their trash.
President Bush’s general proposal is in fact a two-step amnesty. It is amnesty regardless of what he tries to call it. A true guest-worker program would mean NO PERMANENT STATUS would be available to guests. Any program, and this includes Bush’s program and the Senate ‘comprehensive’ program, that provides a path to citizenship, is AMNESTY, period. The Senate proposal went a great deal further and blatantly gave amnesty to the vast majority of illegals. Bush supported the Senate proposal, ergo Bush has proven that he is for amnesty with his actions.
…and actions speak louder than words.
All or nearly all Democrats support amnesty. A significant minority of Republicans support amnesty. In the Senate, this leaves about 30-35 republicans who are willing to fight amnesty proposals and get behind an enforcement first approach. This is not even enough votes to filibuster, SO we are in for a very large battle ahead. The amnesty folks might very well win the battle in political circles, but this ridiculous victory might very well be the fire that ignites a general uprising among the American people against the political establishment.
I want the 2008 Presidential candidates to be forced to make immigration reform the #1 issue, and I want the candidates in the republican primary forced to lock in to promising Tancredo-style reforms.
kaltes on November 15, 2006 at 1:52 PM
p.s. Rove needs to go. That idiot has evidently got it into his head that Republicans going against illegals will result in hispanics voting uniformily against Republicans for a generation. This is wrong-headed. Hispanic immigrants in every poll Ive seen, have been more in favor of crackdowns on illegals than whites are.
If you are a legal mexican immigrant trying to make ends meet, are you going to vote Democrat to retaliate against Republicans removing your workforce competition and ensuring you get higher wages and better opportunities?
kaltes on November 15, 2006 at 1:55 PM
Don’t waste your time talking to these people about immigration Jen.
Scot on November 15, 2006 at 1:55 PM
Hmmm…the last immigration proposal (Hagel-Martinez) called for citizenship for all illegal immigrants who have been here for at least five years. However, they only had to pay three years of back taxes (without the ordinary fees and penalties). That sounds like a 2+ year tax amnesty for each and every illegal immigrant by itself.
Here is what Mel Martinez just had to say:
Border security only, enforcement only, harshness only is not the message I believe that America wants to convey,” Martinez said.
Sure. Why not? They are only breaking our laws. Heaven forbid we convey harshness to lawbreakers. No, instead let us give them rights that we don’t give many convicted native-born lawbreakers. I think we should adopt soft criminal penalties like those of Europe while we are at it. No one should serve more than a 20 year sentence for murder, no matter how heinous. The death penalty should be off the table completely. After all, our tough-on-crime policies make us look harsh in the eyes of other industrialized countries like France.
And clearly, when it comes to border security, we need to be less harsh and more inviting…. Many from the Third World aren’t getting the message; we only have 12-20 million illegals so far. Stop the harshness!
tommy1 on November 15, 2006 at 1:58 PM
Jen and kaltes – allow me to explain what “amnesty” is and isn’t. Amnesty IS allowing those here illegally to gain citizenship. Amnesty ISN’T allowing “guest workers” who arrive after this comprehensive “reform” is enacted to gain citizenship.
steveegg on November 15, 2006 at 2:02 PM
Of course, a guest worker program implemented with minimal oversight is just a “bypass the border patrol and become a permanent resident” program. The anchor baby problem still isn’t resolved and the idea that the government can successfully implement a massive guest worker program when it cannot even round up and deport current visa violators is insane.
Furthermore, who in the world is going to do the background checks for these people that everyone says will be implemented? Where will we get the information needed to make those calls? How will we keep potential bad guys out? That is right! From countries like Mexico. Great idea! Let us put even more of our national security in the hands of Third World countries where corruption is rampant.
tommy1 on November 15, 2006 at 2:07 PM
To get this back to where AP started this, the federal courts and Chuckie Schumer’s newfound role, it’s time to answer the meat of the original post.
Actually, President Bush won’t be allowed to indulge ANY of his fancies regarding federal judges, whether they be in the mold of Roberts, admirers of Miers, or even a full-blown Stevens clone. Schumer and his fellow Dems are simply going to stall every nominee the next 2 years because they feel very strongly that in a few days beyond 26 months, they’ll be the ones that are doing the nominating.
Don’t forget, once confirmed, federal judges don’t come off unless they do something monumentally-stupid like Alcee Hastings. Further, unlike judges nominated by Pubbies, those nominated by ‘Rats are very reliably liberal. Why are they going to run the risk of getting something less than a liberal on the bench for a lifetime?
steveegg on November 15, 2006 at 2:11 PM
Yes it is amnesty, because any such program is going to necessarily be open to all the 10-12 million illegals we already have here. Therefore, by your own definition:
Those who are here illegally will have their status converted to that of legal guest workers, who get a path to citizenship. There is no way to prevent this unless you arrest the 10-12 million illegals here, fingerprint them, deport them, then keep a database of deported persons which applicants to the guest worker program are checked against.
People will give LIP SERVICE to blocking illegals from guest worker programs, but that’s all it will be, because there will be no provision for enforcement to guarantee that illegals are kept out. At most, illegals would simply have to lie and say they didnt reside here illegally. They might have to go south of the border briefly before coming back. Big deal. That is still amnesty.
Any program that results in the 10-12 million illegals already here getting citizenship or legal alien status in any way, is amnesty.
Similarly, the conversion of illegals into legal guest workers even with no path to citizenship is also AMNESTY. You are taking a criminal and telling them that they simply arent criminals anymore. The word for removing criminal/outlaw status from a group of people is called…. you guessed it! AMNESTY!
The only immigration reform that will not be amnesty, will be an enforcement-only reform enacted without any legalization attached to it. Once this is accomplished, once the border is secure, and once the illegal alien population in the US is under 1 million instead of 10+ million, THEN we can talk about guest workers. Until then, it is a battle between pro-Amnesty and pro-security.
kaltes on November 15, 2006 at 2:18 PM
Grow up? You’re the one threatening to start a civil war in your own party simply because they didn’t toe the line 100% on your agenda. On the social issues they did everything you wanted. They went ahead with tax cuts you liked, a war you support, free trade, etc…
But, oh no, they didn’t do one thing you wanted (immigration reform), so it’s time to jump ship! Spoiled brats. You’re the ones who need to sincerely grow up. You’re just going to end up embarassing yourselves on the national scene if your politicians throw hissyfits when we pass our amnesty bill. Because the public supports comprehensive immigration reform and opposes mass deportation.
Thus ensuring a Democratic majority from 2008 and beyond.
Grebrook on November 15, 2006 at 2:21 PM
100%? Hell, we’d be ecstatic if we got even 50%.
Did everything we want? What universe are you living in?!??
thirteen28 on November 15, 2006 at 2:27 PM
The Republicans controlled Congress when Clinton nominated Ginsburg and Breyer, two of the four liberals currently on the court. Only 3 republicans voted against Ginsburg, even though everyone knew she was an extremely liberal ex-ACLU lawyer.
If the democrats want to kill Bush’s nominee, they will answer to the American people. This is why the democrats did not manage to filibuster Roberts and Alito. They were afraid of the electoral consequences. This will be different. If stevens goes, the conservatives will, for the first time in many decades, have a solid 5 vote majority. Many big liberal precedents will be on the chopping block. So I fully expect the liberals to do what you suggest.
The smart thing for Bush to do is not to appoint a terrible nominee like O’Connor, Kennedy, or Souter. He needs to learn for his successes with Roberts and Alito and appoint a strong, reliable conservative with impeccable credentials, so the Democrats can get raked over the coals in the eyes of moderate swing voters for their little tantrums.
The goal is to ensure a Republican wins in 2008. The democrats will be in a lose-lose. Either lose the judiciary, or fight tooth and nail, lose respect in the eyes of the voters, and risk losing both the judiciary AND presidency in 2008.
kaltes on November 15, 2006 at 2:28 PM
I grebrook is back, empty handed and full of piss.
Hey, who’s your pick for Majority Leader, buddy? Nice cohesion you clowns have there.
Pablo on November 15, 2006 at 2:31 PM
After reading Grebrook’s last post, Im even more certain that his is here trolling. His attempt to clumsily portray himself as a conservative is exactly what I would expect from a troll. He continues to make no actual arguments whatsoever, only personal attacks and grossly overbroad statements designed to bait people into responding. That is textbook troll for you.
So please, don’t respond to Grebrook directly, only do so in the 3rd person as Im doing here. Let’s all hope he gets banned soon so he can’t continue trying to wreck the blog’s commentary.
kaltes on November 15, 2006 at 2:33 PM
grebrook is living in another dimension, thirteen28. You know, the one where Bush is Hitler and Saddam wasn’t bothering anybody.
Pablo on November 15, 2006 at 2:33 PM
kaltes – Apparently you didn’t read what I said very carefully. There is a reason why I defined what amnesty is first; it was to emphasize that granting citizenship to those here illegally is amnesty.
Similarily, there is a reason why I used the phrase “who arrive after this comprehensive ‘reform’” when I defined what isn’t amnesty. By explicitly defining it to those not yet here (either illegally or legally), I implicitly excluded those here illegally from the definition of what isn’t amnesty.
That our leaders have chosen to extend the “guest worker” program to illegal immigrants does not render those definitions incorrect; rather, it renders those leaders imbeciles.
Now, can we please get back to the point AP was trying to make, which was the courts?
steveegg on November 15, 2006 at 2:35 PM
Schumer just needs horns, a small sharp gotee and a red suit and he’s good to go for any costume party.
For him, ready for his close up means a heart warming hob goblin smiley face.
Speakup on November 15, 2006 at 2:36 PM
Nice limp-wristed, evil-grinning handling of the gun, Schumie…I still believe liberals want guns outlawed because they’re afraid of not being able to control themselves when they’ve got their finger on the trigger…
Funny that we let a former ACLU lawyer get on the SCOTUS and these jerks won’t even let a qualified gal like Rogers Brown on, without even hearing her case! Ginsburg didn’t even answer any of the questions and we were stupid enough to confirm her. So much for the effing moral high ground. I’ve had it with that. I’d rather not put any judge on than one that’s acceptable to the likes of Schumer. ARGH.
I agree completely. If the guestworker/amnesty is pushed through we should not have to pay taxes to support those who benefit. We are not being represented.
No Taxation Without Representation!!
NTWR on November 15, 2006 at 2:37 PM
This is the classic liberal and open borders republican straw-man argument. I haven’t seen “mass-deportation” offered in ANY bill. Not even the “tough” HR 4437. Mass deportation is what Janet Reno did to Elian Gonzales.
Everyone wants to pretend that Attrition Through Enforcement does not work. Well guess what? It does. And that’s what the public supports though they haven’t been given the information to know that yet. Just enforce the existing laws and half the illegals would self-deport! It’s not that hard.
NTWR on November 15, 2006 at 2:48 PM
LOL. “The public will support our plan but the problem is they’re all f-cking stupid and we haven’t yet programmed them correctly”.
Ah, conservative elitism. Is there any other kind?
Grebrook on November 15, 2006 at 2:59 PM
So you like “The public will support our plan except they’re to f-cking stupid to know we don’t have one.” better?
Hey, who’s your majority leader pick, Grebrook? The new Dem A team is doing a heckuva job, aren’t they, brookie?
Pablo on November 15, 2006 at 3:19 PM
NTWR, love the way you think!
I’m with you–let’s start enforcing the laws already on the books +border lock-down to prevent anymore coming in…
kaltes nailed it. It’s pro-security concerns above all that movitate me…that and the fact that my property taxes threaten to zoom out of sight and we’re swimming in these people here in Dallas (you can get your own personal gang of lawnmowers and maids muy cheapo!)
I wanna know who’s here and why!
The biggest mistake President Bush made after 9/11 was not to lock down both borders because we were at war (Canada, too).
Those AQ jihadis are gonna walk over the Rio Grande with a suitcase nuke and we’ll never know it until it’s too late.
Screw whoever’s President in ’08, I want something done yesterday!
Jen the Neocon on November 15, 2006 at 3:46 PM
As for SCOTUS judges, I hope Bush puts up a Conversative Right Wing nut strict constructionist anyway and to hell with Schumer and his “my p*nis is larger than yours” schtick!
Rush said last week that if he were Bush, he’d go for broke and try to get everything he wanted–what’s they’re to lose?
“L’audace, toujours l’audace.” or “He who dares, wins.”–General George Patton
Jen the Neocon on November 15, 2006 at 3:49 PM
You’re funny.
In an ironic sort of way.
thirteen28 on November 15, 2006 at 3:57 PM
…well, there’s Leftist elitism. It held sway in what we know as Russia for a long, long time…then it went broke.
Note to the Greebster: totalitarian regimes based on impractical ideology *AND* “proprietary”, non-convertable currency need to work other means of income…raffles, sell t-shirts, bake sales…or they can develop their economies and foster competition and innovation…naaaaaaaaaaah….
Puritan1648 on November 15, 2006 at 4:18 PM
Jen – Since Bush is going to have to recess-appoint everybody from here on out anyway, why not? And that’s supposed to be “balls”.
steveegg on November 15, 2006 at 4:26 PM
I told you people that Bush is a closet democrat. Everyone laughed and drank their cool aid. All the Bush’s are liars and frauds. Harriett Miers was Laura’s choice…she is pro abortion….and I don’t even care who aborts their little brats.
LZVandy on November 15, 2006 at 4:41 PM
Charming commentary, LZ.
Boy, talk is cheap, huh?
That would make them just like the Clintons and therefore, Democrats.
I don’t think President Bush lies nor is he a fraud. He’s the real deal to me.
I’m proud he’s my President.
Damn glad to have voted for the man 4 times!
Jen the Neocon on November 15, 2006 at 4:45 PM
Bush a closet Dem? Nah.
Closet moderate? Yep.
A liar? I guess that depends on if when he says he’s concerned about protecting the United States, you include our borders as part of the United States.
A jerk? Well he did call the Minutemen “vigilantes” because they were doing what he was unwilling to do.
I’m of the opinion that if it would stop him from going through with his amnesty plan, I’d be all for the Dems trying to impeach him (but for totally different reasons than the Dems). He is about to hurt this country in a way that could take us a very long time to recover from.
Benaiah on November 15, 2006 at 5:17 PM
Impeach Bush because you don’t like his immigration proposal. Brilliant. Have fun losing the next election.
Scot on November 15, 2006 at 5:20 PM
Grebrook the dumbass troll, wrote: “You’re the kid that ruined Christmas…”
Christmas for Grebrook might not come this year.
‘Cause, Chuckie might not be in charge after all….especially if his party loses the majority.
Jack Abramoff — the “gift” that keeps on giving.
georgej on November 15, 2006 at 6:06 PM
Haha! Talk about elitism. I never said they would be too stupid to understand. That’s an interpretation taken with a heavy dose of personal, er, issues…
If the public were given the information about Attrition Through Enforcement, they would definetly be smart enough to know they like it. In fact,
Unfortunately, the liberal media and open-borders Republicans have muzzled those who talk about it so the public does not even know it’s an option. They just have the straw man of: let them all stay and make them legal or get jack-booted thugs to drag them out of their homes and into cattlecars a-la Janet Reno.
NTWR on November 15, 2006 at 6:11 PM
NTWR, too true!
Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, I talked to here in Dallas wants something to be done to secure the borders and stop more immigration.
I just don’t understand the disconnect between the old Congressional GOPers and this problem–if they’d only had the Malkins to put up some decent legislation like Sensenbrenner’s and then pass it before they went on summer break, we’d be sitting in comfortable majorities in Washington DC virtually forever!
Who dropped the ball and why? I blame DeLay not being there anymore to soldier the bill through…
You can’t blame the President because he asked Congress to give him a bill in a national speech.
Jen the Neocon on November 15, 2006 at 6:30 PM
DeLay was a huge player in this. He could have helped greatly. We had a great message, but the message didn’t get out. The fault could lie with Mehlman, the MSM, or Frist, IMHO.
After Katrina, people would understand we have to stop the leaks in the barrier before we can even think about metering in some amount (of water in that case, in this case “guestworkers” or LEGAL immigrants). We just didn’t get the message out. That’s why I’m so pissed about Mel Martinez taking Mehlman’s place. Talk about adding salt to the wound. Jeez.
NTWR on November 15, 2006 at 6:50 PM
God forbid Upchuck Schumer allow anyone into the SCOTUS who actually knows what the Constitution and ALL the Bill of Rights (especially RKBA) actually means. Schumer is one of those “the Constitution is a living document” types who thinks it’s ok to change it and interpret it to suit your UNConstitutional desires and plans.
Yakko77 on November 15, 2006 at 7:15 PM
But, I thought I was the decider.
thedecider on November 15, 2006 at 7:47 PM