Video: Schumer insists that lame-duck president should not get Supreme Court pick

posted at 9:21 am on February 15, 2016 by Ed Morrissey

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.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

A business as usual!

SayNo2-O on February 15, 2016 at 9:25 AM

Maybe he wants Hillary to do it…
Sure Bill C. would rather have Hillary do it…

albill on February 15, 2016 at 9:29 AM

No comment

lowandslow on February 15, 2016 at 9:31 AM

Why is this even an issue …SENATE SAY NO …END OF STORY….No explanations necessary

dio55 on February 15, 2016 at 9:31 AM

Die Chuck. Do us all a favor.

RealMc on February 15, 2016 at 9:32 AM

Recess appointment (Obama has compromised so far on that) is on the cards if Senate tries to block it.

Obama has given up something, the Senate should give up something as well.

It’s that the purpose of a compromise?

weedisgood on February 15, 2016 at 9:34 AM

i am going to dance dance dance when phucking commies killary and bill take dirt naps!

ARIZONAVETERAN on February 15, 2016 at 9:35 AM

looking forward to reading ole chuck is dead!

ARIZONAVETERAN on February 15, 2016 at 9:36 AM

Lizzie Warren was also quick to claim that repubs are wrong to deny a nomination from going forward for a vote. This was a flip from her ideals in 2007. Of course, everything in DC is political on both sides and I don’t care what they say at this point, what I care about is that they don’t act on anyone served up by the current dear leader.

Kissmygrits on February 15, 2016 at 9:40 AM

No comment

cozmo on February 15, 2016 at 9:40 AM

What a shame our esteemed statesmen have been reduced to deciding and picking nominees for the Supreme and Appellate courts based on their cultural views knowing they will rule based on that ideology rather than strictly on the law.

It’s getting easier and easier to decide how judges are going to rule on controversial issues based on who appointed them.

iamsaved on February 15, 2016 at 9:44 AM

I am not quite as confident as some may be that the Rs have the fortitude to block an Obama nominee.
They may fuss and act tough for a while but the fact is they have never denied him anything.
I predict Obama will put up one or two left-wing kooks whom they will reject and then finally he will nominate one who is merely a staunch and loyal D who will look reasonable compared to the other two.

NeoKong on February 15, 2016 at 9:44 AM

It’s that the purpose of a compromise?

There is a small flaw here. The Democrats have a different meaning for compromise. Their definition is that they get everything they want every time and the Republicans get nothing.

When has the current batch of Democrats ever actually compromised? Obama will not ever nominate a neutral candidate. The Republicans have to stand firm and work like crazy to get a Republican in the White House.

bartbeast on February 15, 2016 at 9:44 AM

bartbeast on February 15, 2016 at 9:44 AM

If the republicans won’t compromise Obama will probably go ahead and make a recess appointment for 1 year

gun-control, Affirmative action, abortion issues will end up being 5-4 in favor of the liberals.

Compromise and get a moderate through or do nothing and get a radical liberal for 1 year.

weedisgood on February 15, 2016 at 9:47 AM

bend over Chuckie

Younggod on February 15, 2016 at 9:49 AM

Recess appointment (Obama has compromised so far on that) is on the cards if Senate tries to block it.

Obama has given up something, the Senate should give up something as well.

It’s that the purpose of a compromise?

weedisgood on February 15, 2016 at 9:34 AM

Obama has not compromised on anything in his entire political career. He was smacked down by the Supreme Court on a 9-0 vote that he had no business making recess appointments whenever he deemed the Senate in recess, as opposed to when it said it was in recess. Try to keep up.

Athanasius on February 15, 2016 at 9:51 AM

The video starts mid-sentence, but has plenty of dead space at the end. Politically motivated recent edit I presume. This will be my last comment here due to FB comments. As Drudge warns, stay off their platforms….

tommylotto on February 15, 2016 at 9:51 AM

but what if Obama agreed to confer with the Republican majority

Yeah, ok.

leftamark on February 15, 2016 at 9:51 AM

I am not quite as confident as some may be that the Rs have the fortitude to block an Obama nominee.

NeoKong on February 15, 2016 at 9:44 AM

If the campaign season has proved anything, it’s that any wobbly Republican looking to cover his ass will meet his political end if he doesn’t grow a pair.

Any Republican siding with Obama is history. Period.

Younggod on February 15, 2016 at 9:52 AM

If the republicans won’t compromise Obama will probably go ahead and make a recess appointment for 1 year

weedisgood on February 15, 2016 at 9:47 AM

Already said he wouldn’t. Jerkweed.

Younggod on February 15, 2016 at 9:54 AM

Already said he wouldn’t. Jerkweed.

Younggod on February 15, 2016 at 9:54 AM

That’s because there is no free lunch. He has compromised on that.

Republicans have to bend over

weedisgood on February 15, 2016 at 9:56 AM

Let’s bury our dead first. Justice Scalia at least deserves that from us.

There’s a time for that. After the primaries.

I even suggest that not one R candidate mention the SC vacancy. They can offer their sincerest condolences though.

TheAlamos on February 15, 2016 at 10:03 AM

Will Chickie get some help from his friends Donald and Marco?

Realdemocrat1 on February 15, 2016 at 10:08 AM

This needs to go viral!

hardrock230 on February 15, 2016 at 10:16 AM

Funny, the pothead thinks Republicans owe his precious savior a favor.

CurtZHP on February 15, 2016 at 10:19 AM

The only chance he has for a recess appointment is from 01-03-2016 and 01-20-2016.
This would allow the 8 justices to tie on this years rulings and give the libs a majority for about 6-months next year.

As far as accepting a moderat appointee this year?
There is no such thing as a moderate in American Politics.
As far as the Supreme Court goes… Real Constitutionalists stay that way. EVERYONE else becomes more and more liberal. Liberalism like cancer!

SayNo2-O on February 15, 2016 at 10:34 AM

The only chance he has for a recess appointment is from 01-03-2016 and 01-20-2016.
This would allow the 8 justices to tie on this years rulings and give the libs a majority for about 6-months next year.

As far as accepting a moderat appointee this year?
There is no such thing as a moderate in American Politics.
As far as the Supreme Court goes… Real Constitutionalists stay that way. EVERYONE else becomes more and more liberal. Liberalism like cancer!

SayNo2-O on February 15, 2016 at 10:34 AM

Actually the Senate is in recess this week for President’s Day, and Obama could announce a recess appointment tomorrow and that person would be seated on the Court immediately. Their term would last only until the Senate adjourns in December and that would screw up the next term of the Court, but it would allow a liberal majority when the Court decides some important cases in this term – especially the challenge of Obama’s executive amnesty. That’s a critical case because if it goes 4-4 then the lower court ruling stands, and that ruling said the orders violated the Administrative Procedures Act. The Court had also asked the parties to brief the Constitutional argument as well, so Obama would have a real interest in seating a liberal Justice now that could decide that question and set precedent that the President has the power to grant legal status and work permits to anyone he wants.

There are platy of other recesses this year – Easter, July 4, the entire month of August, Jewish holidays, Thanksgiving. Of course the Court adjourns in June so it would make no sense to make a recess appointment after the Easter recess.

When the Senate adjourns in December it will adjourn sine die and this is not considered a recess. The new Senate will convene in January. It will probably not have a recess before Obama leaves office.

rockmom on February 15, 2016 at 10:50 AM

How well do I know Barrack Obama? He’s going to nominate an African-American woman. Why? BECAUSE THERE’S NEVER BEEN AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN WOMAN NOMINATED TO THE SUPREME COURT. That’s how well I know Barrack Obama. Surely those Republican naves would not block the nomination of the first African-American woman to ever be nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States would they? And no, It will not be Janice Rogers Brown, but wouldn’t put it past him to nominate United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

supersport667 on February 15, 2016 at 10:54 AM

And no, It will not be Janice Rogers Brown, but wouldn’t put it past him to nominate United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

supersport667 on February 15, 2016 at 10:54 AM

Let him. She’s going nowhere.

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on February 15, 2016 at 11:01 AM

Too bad the media will never run this clip. Almost an airtight conspiracy.

paul1149 on February 15, 2016 at 11:04 AM

If Obama nominated an Alito or Roberts, why would Republicans refuse to confirm him or her?

Hey Ed, how’s that Roberts appointment working? Here’s a hint, PPACA. That ruling? Not so much.

soghornetgunner on February 15, 2016 at 11:35 AM

So we have a resolution that the Democrats passed to stop lame duck Presidents from making appointments and as recent as 2007 we have the Democrats saying that we would not allow the President to make appointments but now the Democrats and their talking heads in the media are all up in arms that the Republicans are delaying Obama, our current lame duck President from doing exactly that. It is going to be interesting to see if the Republicans have even the slightest bit of backbone, as there is more then substantial evidence, that the Democrats would do this to a Republican President if the thing was reversed.

pwb on February 15, 2016 at 1:22 PM

Schumer’s hypocrisy is another example — as if any more were needed — of why it’s pointless to engage donks in any kind of principled discussion. “History” for them begins when they get up at noon to go pee. So what might have been a cherished principle for them yesterday gets changed with their diapers today.

Spurius Ligustinus on February 15, 2016 at 1:26 PM

no comment

koaiko on February 15, 2016 at 2:26 PM

Then and now

Schadenfreude on February 15, 2016 at 2:42 PM

I wouldn’t put it past Obama to nominate himself to the Supreme Court.

Theophile on February 15, 2016 at 4:37 PM