Sen. Charles Schumer of New York

[OnTheRocks]

I don't mean this for any other reason than I am curious:

 

Does anyone like Schumer? and if so why?

 

I personally think he is one of those dangerous idiots and am researching his positions

and his past to find out where he came from and how he ever got elected.

 

Don't get mad at me for calling him an idiot...i don't mean to call him names but i truley think he is an idiot.

[Taro T]

I don't mean this for any other reason than I am curious:

 

Does anyone like Schumer?  and if so why?

 

I personally think he is one of those dangerous idiots and am researching his positions 

and his past to find out where he came from and how he ever got elected.

 

Don't get mad at me for calling him an idiot...i don't mean to call him names but i truley think he is an idiot.

456493[/snapback]

I don't like him, but plan on voting for him for one simple reason - seniority. The longer he is in office, the more seniority he will have and, theoretically, the more spoils he will bring back to NY. (Yes, I realize that is a HORRIBLE reason to vote for the guy; but until the pork fest gets scaled back, I'd rather have him in there trying to get what he can for NY rather than a Daniel P. who stood on principal and let NY take it up the backside or the other one who I can't honestly believe gives a rat's butt for NYers.)

 

I think NY screwed up royally voting him in and Senator Pothole out, (ooooh, we don't like him; he's a politician (and the other guy ain't?!?!?!?!?)) but considering the damage is done; I'd say keep him and hope for the best. He, unlike the other one, actually does try to do well for NY. While his views oftentimes clash with mine, I think he is better than the alternatives (especially when the Republicans won't bring a legitimate candidate to challenge him).

 

Plus, I REALLY don't like the thought of the other one being my senior senator. I don't agree with a lot of Schumer's views and am embarrassed that he voted against Roberts but I do believe that in some warped way he does have NY's best interests in mind.

 

Dave.

[Mickey]

I don't mean this for any other reason than I am curious:

 

Does anyone like Schumer?  and if so why?

 

I personally think he is one of those dangerous idiots and am researching his positions  

and his past to find out where he came from and how he ever got elected.

 

Don't get mad at me for calling him an idiot...i don't mean to call him names but i truley think he is an idiot.

456493[/snapback]

Idiot?

Granted, he is no towering intellectual like Tom Delay or Sam Brownback but he did graduate from Harvard College and then Harvard Law School. He passed the bar but never practiced law and instead was elected to the State Assembly. I think he was the youngest ever elected since Teddy Roosevelt. He was there for 6 years before running and winning a seat in congress which he held for the next 19 years. He then defeated Al D'Amato and as I recall, it was a landslide. He has been in the Senate since 1998.

 

I disagree with him on a number of positions so I do think he is flat out wrong on a number of points but "idiot"? Naaah. Compared to most Senators he is a freaking prodigy.

[Mickey]

I don't like him, but plan on voting for him for one simple reason - seniority.  The longer he is in office, the more seniority he will have and, theoretically, the more spoils he will bring back to NY.  (Yes, I realize that is a HORRIBLE reason to vote for the guy; but until the pork fest gets scaled back, I'd rather have him in there trying to get what he can for NY rather than a Daniel P. who stood on principal and let NY take it up the backside or the other one who I can't honestly believe gives a rat's butt for NYers.)

 

I think NY screwed up royally voting him in and Senator Pothole out, (ooooh, we don't like him; he's a politician (and the other guy ain't?!?!?!?!?)) but considering the damage is done; I'd say keep him and hope for the best.  He, unlike the other one, actually does try to do well for NY.  While his views oftentimes clash with mine, I think he is better than the alternatives (especially when the Republicans won't bring a legitimate candidate to challenge him).

 

Plus, I REALLY don't like the thought of the other one being my senior senator.  I don't agree with a lot of Schumer's views and am embarrassed that he voted against Roberts but I do believe that in some warped way he does have NY's best interests in mind.

 

Dave.

456530[/snapback]

What was wrong with voting against Roberts?

[OnTheRocks]

What was wrong with voting against Roberts?

456723[/snapback]

 

 

in my opinion there was nothing disclosed during the confirmation hearings that should have lead anyone to vote against Roberts.

 

if he he voted no because he didn't like the fact that Roberts refused to answer his questions about issues that might be decided before the court he should have also voted no on Ginsberg.

 

he gave no valid reason for his no vote but i will speculate he did it because he is a hardcore left extremist that would have voted no even if Bush had nominated him to the bench.

[Taro T]

What was wrong with voting against Roberts?

456723[/snapback]

There was nothing brought up before or during the hearings that showed he shouldn't be confirmed.

 

The fact that Schumer is left wing and Roberts is conservative does not mean that Roberts is not qualified. Schumer appears to be in a snit because he didn't like the way Roberts answered his questions. In the little bit that I saw of the hearings, Roberts sounded extremely well versed in past Court cases and came across as intelligent, thoughtful, and well spoken. Roberts was following Ginsberg's lead in how to answer questions before the committee - a nominee does not speak directly about cases that he may have to judge. (I'm not a lawyer, obviously, so maybe you can fill me in on the details of why that is.) Ginsberg made it out of committee with 0 votes against her. Breyer was also recommended to come up for a floor vote with no votes against him. Roberts should have received the same. I saw nothing in the hearings and read nothing about them in the papers that indicated Roberts should not have received a full Senate vote.

 

I was not happy with Clinton's choices to the SC, but I don't think either should have had as many "no" votes in the full Senate as they did. While I disagree with several of their rulings, I realize that the guy that's in the White House gets to choose who he wants. As long as there is nothing that turns up to disqualify the person, the President should get to choose who he wants. That is a big part of the reason I voted against Gore and Kerry even though I live in a state where my vote had no chance of being in the majority.

 

In my opinion, Roberts is well qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

 

Dave.

[Mickey]

in my opinion there was nothing disclosed during the confirmation hearings that should have lead anyone to vote against Roberts.

 

if he he voted no because he didn't like the fact that Roberts refused to answer his questions about issues that might be decided before the court he should have also voted no on Ginsberg.

 

he gave no valid reason for his no vote but i will speculate he did it because he is a hardcore left extremist that would have voted no even if Bush had nominated him to the bench.

456736[/snapback]

I guess it all depends on what you think constitutes a "valid reason". Were you upset with the way Specter was publicly eviscerated for suggesting it was possible that he might not vote to confirm a Bush appointee?

 

I believe that Bush would not, in a million, zillion years have named Roberts if he didn't think he would overturn Roe. I also think that by and large, the right would not support Roberts at all if they thought for a second that he would leave Roe alone. If the President and his "Justice Sunday" followers can use a litmus test for the Supreme Court, why can't Charles Schumer?

 

Bush and the right could be wrong about Roberts, I doubt it, but it happens. The fact is though that both sides are using a litmus test despite all their pretense to the contrary.

[Taro T]

I guess it all depends on what you think constitutes a "valid reason".  Were you upset with the way Specter was publicly eviscerated for suggesting it was possible that he might not vote to confirm a Bush appointee?

 

I believe that Bush would not, in a million, zillion years have named Roberts if he didn't think he would overturn Roe.  I also think that by and large, the right would not support Roberts at all if they thought for a second that he would leave Roe alone.  If the President and his "Justice Sunday" followers can use a litmus test for the Supreme Court, why can't Charles Schumer?

 

Bush and the right could be wrong about Roberts, I doubt it, but it happens.  The fact is though that both sides are using a litmus test despite all their pretense to the contrary.

456807[/snapback]

The last Roe decision was 6-3. Roberts is replacing one of the 3. Even if O'Conner gets replaced by someone that does not support RvW, the RvW side still wins 5-4. Notice prior to Ginsberg getting on the Court it was 5-4. As I mentioned, I don't like Ginsberg or Breyer; but they should be on the SC. They are the nominees that Clinton wanted. He won the election. Most of the Senate (90+) voted for them, even though I know that a lot of the "yea" votes knew that they would not agree with the justices on many issues.

 

Many on the left claim that they are worried about Roberts becoming or being an idealogue. However, the only idealogues on the SC issue I see are coming from the left. When left leaning judges were nominated to the SC and came before the Senate, they were confirmed overwhelmingly. Just saying "I don't like your views" does not make that nominee unqualified, much as I might have liked it to back in the mid-90's.

 

Dave.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

I never liked him before he was in the Senate and I don't agree with him on a lot of issues including Roberts, but I feel that he has done a good job for Buffalo.

 

He actually has been in Buffalo quite a bit and has been involved in solving some of the Peace Bridge traffic issues, and is showing some involvement in the waterfront and in the issues related to the new contract for the Niagara Falls power authority.

[Mickey]

There was nothing brought up before or during the hearings that showed he shouldn't be confirmed. 

 

The fact that Schumer is left wing and Roberts is conservative does not mean that Roberts is not qualified.  Schumer appears to be in a snit because he didn't like the way Roberts answered his questions.  In the little bit that I saw of the hearings, Roberts sounded extremely well versed in past Court cases and came across as intelligent, thoughtful, and well spoken.  Roberts was following Ginsberg's lead in how to answer questions before the committee - a nominee does not speak directly about cases that he may have to judge.  (I'm not a lawyer, obviously, so maybe you can fill me in on the details of why that is.)  Ginsberg made it out of committee with 0 votes against her.  Breyer was also recommended to come up for a floor vote with no votes against him.  Roberts should have received the same.  I saw nothing in the hearings and read nothing about them in the papers that indicated Roberts should not have received a full Senate vote.

 

I was not happy with Clinton's choices to the SC, but I don't think either should have had as many "no" votes in the full Senate as they did.  While I disagree with several of their rulings, I realize that the guy that's in the White House gets to choose who he wants.  As long as there is nothing that turns up to disqualify the person, the President should get to choose who he wants.  That is a big part of the reason I voted against Gore and Kerry even though I live in a state where my vote had no chance of being in the majority.

 

In my opinion, Roberts is well qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

 

Dave.

456798[/snapback]

The Senate gets to confirm these people and in keeping with the notion of constitutional minimalism so popular on the right these days (unless we are talking about guns), I see nothing in the Constitution that limits when the Senate can refuse to confirm a nominee. It was meant to be a political process which discourages extremism. That is done by giving all sides enough power over the process to force consideration of their respective positions.

 

There are hundreds of qualified candidates, probably more. The word "qualified" is probably overused in this context. For example, if you sincerely believed that position X was the proper and true constitutionally mandated position on a given issue and you knew Judge Y, based on faulty legal analysis, takes a different position, couldn't you decide that his faulty legal analysis makes him unqualified to be on the court?

 

The truth is, for the Senate and the President, the far right and the far left, "qualified" means "vote the way I want him/her to".

[Mickey]

The last Roe decision was 6-3.  Roberts is replacing one of the 3.  Even if O'Conner gets replaced by someone that does not support RvW, the RvW side still wins 5-4.  Notice prior to Ginsberg getting on the Court it was 5-4.  As I mentioned, I don't like Ginsberg or Breyer; but they should be on the SC.  They are the nominees that Clinton wanted.  He won the election.  Most of the Senate (90+) voted for them, even though I know that a lot of the "yea" votes knew that they would not agree with the justices on many issues.

 

Many on the left claim that they are worried about Roberts becoming or being an idealogue.  However, the only idealogues on the SC issue I see are coming from the left.  When left leaning judges were nominated to the SC and came before the Senate, they were confirmed overwhelmingly.  Just saying "I don't like your views" does not make that nominee unqualified, much as I might have liked it to back in the mid-90's. 

 

Dave.

456844[/snapback]

Breyer was considered a moderate at the time and even Phil Gramm voted for him stating that he was about as good as they (republicans) had a right to expect. On top of that, Clinton was so deferential that even Hatch complimented him on how he handled the nomination in terms of his choice of justices and the way he treated Republicans. By and large, the President has tried to follow that script with Roberts and as a result, his confirmation has been a cakewalk.

[Terry Tate]

...Yes, I realize that is a HORRIBLE reason to vote for the guy; but until the pork fest gets scaled back, ...

What an amazing statement. Tough to argue with a guy who admits right up front his reasoning is, well, lacking. You both agree he's wrong, yet he insists on doing it anyway.

[Taro T]

Breyer was considered a moderate at the time and even Phil Gramm voted for him stating that he was about as good as they (republicans) had a right to expect.  On top of that, Clinton was so deferential that even Hatch complimented him on how he handled the nomination in terms of his choice of justices and the way he treated Republicans.  By and large, the President has tried to follow that script with Roberts and as a result, his confirmation has been a cakewalk.

456877[/snapback]

Mickey, what you consider a moderate and I consider a moderate probably are not the same beast.

 

You are also right that Bush followed the Clinton script, Bush met with most of the democrats before nominating Roberts and Roberts met individually with most if not all of the Senators. The White House gave Congress thousands of pages of requested documents, the few they held back were withheld with the blessings of the living past Attorney Generals (dem and rep) due to executive priviledge reasons. Heck, even Pat Leahy voted to send Roberts' nomination to the full Senate. That being stated, I see no valid reason for Schumer to have voted no on sending the nomination to the full Senate.

 

Dave.

[erynthered]

God, I'm glad I don't live in New ( permanent Liberal) York anymore.

[PastaJoe]

I like him as one of our Senators; he represents the views of the majority of New York State, and along with Hillary gives us two strong Senators who are able to put forward the views of the majority of New Yorkers despite currently being in the minority party. He will be a strong voice for New York when the Democrats take back the Senate in the next 3 years, and can only help us if he has to work with a future President Clinton.

[erynthered]

I like him as one of our Senators; he represents the views of the majority of New York State, and along with Hillary gives us two strong Senators who are able to put forward the views of the majority of New Yorkers despite currently being in the minority party.  He will be a strong voice for New York when the Democrats take back the Senate in the next 3 years, and can only help us if he has to work with a future President Clinton.

457251[/snapback]

 

 

Did they help you get that job you wanted Joe? I think they're the ones who are suppose to help you on the local level.

 

But then again helping yourself is not something the democratic party wants you to do.

 

Land lots available in New Orleans, Cheap. Maybe even Free!!

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I like him as one of our Senators; he represents the views of the majority of New York State, and along with Hillary gives us two strong Senators who are able to put forward the views of the majority of New Yorkers despite currently being in the minority party.  He will be a strong voice for New York when the Democrats take back the Senate in the next 3 years, and can only help us if he has to work with a future President Clinton.

457251[/snapback]

 

That would be your wet dream, yes? A future president Clinton?

 

God save our nation if that woman ever becomes the President.

[KD in CA]

The truth is, for the Senate and the President, the far right and the far left, "qualified" means "vote the way I want him/her to".

456865[/snapback]

 

And you seem only too happy to defend this practice. At least for the far left. I'm sure you would have been just as understanding if the conservatives had tried to drag Ginsberg through the mud for refusing to condemn Affirmative Action in her hearings.

 

Schumer is scum.

[Mickey]

Mickey, what you consider a moderate and I consider a moderate probably are not the same beast. 

 

You are also right that Bush followed the Clinton script, Bush met with most of the democrats before nominating Roberts and Roberts met individually with most if not all of the Senators.  The White House gave Congress thousands of pages of requested documents, the few they held back were withheld with the blessings of the living past Attorney Generals (dem and rep) due to executive priviledge reasons.  Heck, even Pat Leahy voted to send Roberts' nomination to the full Senate.  That being stated, I see no valid reason for Schumer to have voted no on sending the nomination to the full Senate.

 

Dave.

457185[/snapback]

I don't really agree with Schumer's vote but I think he had a "valid reason" and we could probably drain the blood right out of our brains until we passed out trying to define what, in this context, "valid reason" means. The bottom line is that this guy is going to get confirmed and it managed to happen without the nation undergoing a mass anal seizure over the whole thing. Despite how anyone might feel about Bush, he did a solid job with the Roberts pick. He is enough of a mystery to give the needed cover to republican moderates and conservative democrats alike. If he does trash Roe, pro-choice republicans can shrug their shoulders and credibly say "who knew?".

 

We'll see what he does on the next one.

[Mickey]

That would be your wet dream, yes? A future president Clinton?

 

God save our nation if that woman ever becomes the President.

457461[/snapback]

Yes, God forbid we ever experience the peace and prosperity we did circa

1992-2000, lord knows I couldn't stand another second of that. I am not sure what I would miss the most, the wars, the recessions or the record deficits.