Good for Schumer. I actually like this stand of his.

If he keeps his word, we can expect the Dems to be voted out in 2008.

Why is it that the Democrats' first reaction to anything they don't like is "I am taking my ball and going home?"

Wah.

America hates whiners.

Well, let's not forget Bush's preemptive declaration that Justice will not prosecute any Republican charged with contempt of Congress, even though the law requires them to.

With Bush vetoing bipartisan-supported legislation like the SCHIP refunding and expansion, consider this a Democratic congressional "veto" in return.

This is a really bad idea in a congress that is loaded with bad ideas.

Not because people will even notice because, face it, most don't know what is going on in the courts. But rather because this is nothing more than a total pander to small group of people.

Hey Lee, a VETO is the President's prerogative, and due Constitutional power. It isn't a parliamentarian game. If Schumer doesn't like the nominee vote against him/her. Campaign against the nominee, even get the whole Judiciary Committee to vote against their confirmation. But to say, "I will not do my job", that is really stupid.

With Bush vetoing bipartisan-supported legislation like the SCHIP refunding and expansion, consider this a Democratic congressional "veto" in return.

No Lee, consider this a partisan refusal to allow appointments to come to a vote.

Ahh, I am in good company with Brian and Leeward in supporting Sen. Schumer's attempt to make the Senate a blockade.

[/sarc]

I think there is a good chance that Schumer would actually try this. I also think that it could seriously backfire, so bad that even trying to spin the fallout as all Bush's fault won't work anymore.

It's too bad the Republicans are a bit too cowardly to declare such a move as precedent and then use it on every nominee submitted by a Democrat president. Because if Schumer knew that these kind of stunts would seriously damage the Democrats in the future, then he probably would be less likely to try them himself.

Mike, I hope Schumer does try it. Really.

It's almost certain to backfire. And far be it from me to stand in the way of Democrats shooting themselves in the foot.

Besides, me supporting Schumer has Brian and Leeward totally confused. They dunno whether to denounce me or applaud me!

It's always been about the courts.

I love the way the anti-american, terrorists supporting democrats have set the next democrat president up for failure. Over three hundred investigations, one minor, unnecessary bill passed in seven months. All the future democrat presidents will be able to do is sit in their office with one thumb in their mouth and the other up their butt waiting for the republicans in congress to say 'switch'. Payback will be he**, but it will be fun watching idiots like Chuckie slit their own throats, literally. The real cause of the democrat insanity has now been proven. They are/were all heavy Pot smokers and pot drives you crazy.

to say that Schumer is full of shit, is to denigrate constipated people everywhere...and I just won't do that!

for all the Leftist trolls on this blog, let's fast forward...

2011...President Kucinich nominates Ward Churchill to fill the vacancy created when Clarence Thomas died of a heart-attack. The Republican contolled Congress refuses to allow a vote on Mr. Churchill.

Well, Lefties...what do ya think should happen?

Brian writes:

Well, let's not forget Bush's preemptive declaration that Justice will not prosecute any Republican charged with contempt of Congress, even though the law requires them to.

This is a complete falsehood of course. Bush has said no such thing. What has been pointed out is that, in accordance with a quarter century old precedent followed by administrations since both Democrat and Republican, Justice will not prosecute a criminal contempt of congress referral where a claim of executive priviledge has been made by the White House.

Not any Republican, as falsely claimed by Brian.

Robin Roberts, please refrain from providing facts to our trolls...they tend become unruly, and even incontinent, and the resulting damage to the furnishings is very costly.

thank you!

I don't get the problem here. The constitution allows for the president to choose an appointee, and then the Senate has to confirm the appointee. How is Schumer disregarding the Constitution by saying: "Read my lips: no more nutjobs"

"Schumer isn't even acknowledging Bush's constitutional right to the nominee of his choice; instead, he is telling the entire country that the only nominees that are acceptable are those that the Democrats want."

His constitutional right? Bwahahahahahaha girl; you have a comprehension disability.

Kim, you need to improve on your basic reading skills or at least get beyond the monarchy of Bush.

The Constitution specifically states: "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, ...; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ..., Judges of the supreme Court,"

Unless your familiarity w/ English is, perhaps as a second language, there is no basis for your claim above as to Bush's right to his nominee. So far, the Bush Monarchy, while well underway, has not been officially proclaimed. Your cart is in front of your horse.

2011...President Kucinich nominates Ward Churchill to fill the vacancy created when Clarence Thomas died of a heart-attack. The Republican contolled Congress refuses to allow a vote on Mr. Churchill.

Well, Lefties...what do ya think should happen?

Make him play middle linebacker for Vanderbilt. He keeps a college scholarship and meets some of America's finest.

I agree, FreedomFries.

Let the Senate Democrats vote and show the American people that they believe in what's really important... stonewalling the White House!

There's an accomplishment worth running for re-election on: "We stopped the President from putting replacement Justices on the Supreme Court!"

FrenchFry

Is your problem with this?
"Schumer isn't even acknowledging Bush's constitutional right to the nominee of his choice;

I think this is your reading comprehension problem: to wit, the difference between "choice" and "Advice and Consent of the Senate", or rather, Executive choice and Senate Advice and Consent.

And for this...Unless your familiarity w/ English is, perhaps as a second language, there is no basis for your claim above as to Bush's right to his nominee. ...the English as a second language problem appears to be yours, in that the word nominee has specific meaning.
Another lib hoist on their own petard....it's beginning to look like Paris in 1798 over at Lib HQ.

Round them Commie basturds up and hang them. They are not AMERICANS they are the enemy.

Wow, Rob, what a thoughtful, profund, concise post. Jackass.

Ryan, for one thing, President Bush's judicial nominees have been of a very high quality. There have not been any "nutjobs" nominated so your insult is ill directed. CJ Roberts and J. Alito are high quality jurists.

The practice of the Democrats of smearing people nominated for office or the bench by a Republican for absolutely no good reason at all got old long ago.

Schumer isn't even acknowledging Bush's constitutional right to the nominee of his choice

Bush will retain his right to nominate. It's just that his nominees will get shot down. No constitutional problem there.

The epithet "Bush Appointee" will be as welcomed as the n-word is now.

Remind me to donate to Schumer's opponent next time he is up for election.

I donated to Thune just to get rid of that other idiot. It was money well spent.

FF is an example of liberal sewage and he is here to spout that garbage.

The Dem's "100 investigations in 100 days" plan shows how serious they are about governing. Then there's Chucky Schumer, a laughingstock in the Harry Reid and Teddy K mold. Lighten up everyone, the Dems are digging a hole for themselves -- just stay out of the way and let them do it.

Are you attempting to suggest that the use of the word "nominee" w/ its "specific meaning" implies the right to one's choice?

That seems to be what they're saying. Pretty stupid, even by righty standards.

When a letter is sent to air head Harry Reid from Bagdad stating "to be brief , your words are killing us"

What don't you understand RYAN?

You want the most criminal and corrupt party of democrats in the White House and any other position of POWER. Screw you idiots.

What an ass. And exactly what is that "specific meaning" you suckyphant? Are you attempting to suggest that the use of the word "nominee" w/ its "specific meaning" implies the right to one's choice? If that be the case, then once the GOP convention nominates its latest would-be monarch, we just cut the waste of time, allow SCOTUS once again the power to appoint and go straight to innaugaration...er, coronation.

The petard you reference is about as apparent as your king's new clothes

FrenchFry
The specific meaning refers directly and specifically to the term "nominee". Any questions?

The President has the Constitutional right to serve up nominees for specific positions in the Federal Government. It is the President's right and exclusively his choice. What is it about this that you do not understand? Are you confused about advice and consent, or are you delusional?

If that be the case, then once the GOP convention nominates its latest would-be monarch, we just cut the waste of time, allow SCOTUS once again the power to appoint and go straight to innaugaration...er, coronation.

You're Jim aren't you? Soque pupetting at this late hour.

The President has the Constitutional right to serve up nominees for specific positions in the Federal Government.

And Schumer's not trying to take that right away. So where's the problem?

Democrats can't win by merit and they know it. That's why they engage in election/voting fraud , vote buying smear campaigns and cry baby obstruction. Quite you damn whining Schmucky Schumer.

jpe

And Schumer's not trying to take that right away. So where's the problem?

Agreed, Schumer's just complaing. But FF Super Size doesn't understand the concept. We're in remedial class now. Come back when the thread is elevated to previously accepted levels.

Agreed, Schumer's just complaing.

He's threatening to have the Senate use its right to advice and consent by withholding consent. And if the Senate does exactly that, it doesn't impinge on the President's distinct right to nominate.

What was suggested in the initial post is that the president's right to nominate entails some obligation by the Senate to consent, which is plain horse shit. The Senate can categorically refuse to consent on any nominee for any reason it chooses, just as the President can nominate any idiot - or not nominate anybody - s/he wants for any reason whatsoever.

If one of the left leaning Justices dies or retires and leaves the seat. No new justice, go ahead and decide things with 8. A 5 to 3 decision will go as far as a 5 to 4. We might get a 6 to 2 out of this. Go ahead Schumer, make my day.

True, JPE,