Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Exultant Chuck Says He’ll Veto the Next Alito (Schumer plots permanent majority)
The New York Observer. ^ | 11/20/2006 edition | Jason Horowitz

Posted on 11/15/2006 12:12:55 PM PST by Liz

Exultant Chuck Says He’ll Veto the Next Alito; New King of Washington Promises Moderate Court; Rove-like, Plans Permanent Democratic Majority; More N.Y. Homeland Money, Iraqi Federalism

More than the inability to influence Iraq policy or the President’s tax cuts, Chuck Schumer says that the single greatest failure of the Democrats as an opposition party was allowing Samuel Alito to join the Supreme Court.

“Judges are the most important,” said Mr. Schumer, who orchestrated the implausible Democratic takeover of the Senate last week. “One more justice would have made it a 5-4 conservative, hard-right majority for a long time. That won’t happen.”

From now on, all the President’s judicial appointments will need to meet the requirements of Mr. Schumer, the Park Slope power broker who has happily accepted the mantle of chief architect for the Democrats’ effort to build a majority for the 2008 elections and beyond.

The Senator also intends, in the coming months, to rework the federal government’s funding priorities in New York’s favor, to steer the Democrats toward a radically new position on Iraq and, while he’s at it, to cement his position as the unofficially declared tactical guru for the national party.

And in case anyone’s wondering, yes, Mr. Schumer is entirely comfortable with this sort of power.

With his Gold Toe–stockinged feet dangling, the 55-year-old slumped in his armchair on Friday morning as if it were a leather throne. On his apartment’s front door, a neighbor taped up a front page of The New York Times heralding the Democrats’ success and scrawled “Congratulations Schumers!” across the cover.

The candidates that Mr. Schumer recruited, groomed and bankrolled had won a comprehensive victory over the incumbent Republicans, giving the Democrats a narrow majority in the Senate to complement a rout in the House. Since the election, Mr. Schumer has been awash in attention from the media, his Democratic colleagues and even from the President, who called, quite sportingly, soon after the results were finalized.

For Mr. Schumer, who was installed on Tuesday as Vice Chairman of the Democratic caucus and officially reinstated as head of the DSCC, the attention couldn’t be coming at a better time.

“I am writing a book, about how to build a permanent—a long-term majority,” Mr. Schumer said during an early-morning interview in the pink den of his apartment near Grand Army Plaza. He sat between a view of lower Manhattan and portraits of Democratic icons Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Al Smith. “I generally have an eye toward longer-term strategy and politics, and I think my colleagues rely on me for that.”

His book, Positively American: Winning Back the Middle Class Majority One Family at a Time, will be released right around the President’s State of the Union address, and will fit neatly into the role that Mr. Schumer now envisions for himself as tactician in chief for the newly ascendant Democrats.

“I’ve always had some influence, and I guess now, because of what we’ve been able to accomplish, I have some more influence,” Mr. Schumer said. “So when I say we shouldn’t do this or we should do that, I guess people will pay a little more attention. Or go along with it, even if they don’t agree.”

Certainly, the party wasn’t united behind Mr. Schumer’s election strategy this year. He championed a traditional approach: directing the bulk of the party’s financial and logistical resources toward handpicked candidates in a few competitive races. Howard Dean, who heads the Democratic National Committee, advocated a “50-state strategy,” spreading money around toward the longer-term goal of making the party viable even in areas that have been Republican strongholds.

After the victory—the Democrats picked up six Republican-held seats and defended every Democratic one—Mr. Schumer hardly seemed ready to concede the point.

“Fifty-state is a good thing to do, but it didn’t help us in this election,” said Mr. Schumer. “My only disagreement with Howard is that he should help us fund taking back the majority, because it would make a difference with things like the Supreme Court. And he came through—he ended up giving us $7.5 million. We tried the honey approach rather than the vinegar approach, and it worked.”

--SNIP--


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: chuckie; chuckieschumer; liberalmeathead; rats; slimeball
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-202 next last

1 posted on 11/15/2006 12:13:00 PM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Liz

Rove-like, you say??? Plans permanent Rat majority, you say??? May he enjoy the same success that Karl Rove did this year.


2 posted on 11/15/2006 12:15:12 PM PST by seanmerc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seanmerc; Liz

Not only do I wish him the success but quicker.


3 posted on 11/15/2006 12:16:48 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Karl Rove isn't magnificent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Liz

The ruling party had a permanent majority in Mexico, the Soviet Union, communist China, Cuba, and Nazi Germany.

Those examples are going to be hard acts for Schumer to follow, but I'm sure he'll try.


4 posted on 11/15/2006 12:16:52 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz

Hey Chucky, Abramoff just spilled the beans on Dirty Harry and maybe more of the roaches that are your colleagues. You are about to get vetoed yourself out of the majority by the govenor of Nevada.


5 posted on 11/15/2006 12:17:45 PM PST by DarthVader (Conservatives aren't always right , but Liberals are almost always wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz

Chuckie "Proud-To-Be-A-Socialist" Schumer sees the SCOTUS, as all radical leftists do, as a vehicle to install liberalism and socialism as the platform of America. Anti-Constitutional liberal judicial activism on the SCOTUS, as we have witnessed recently (5th amendment attack), is a good example of what these non-Americans want to do to this country.

Shred our Constitution.


6 posted on 11/15/2006 12:18:29 PM PST by EagleUSA (T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Maybe the Rats' developing little Abramoff problem will bring that to pass. Maybe Dingy Harry will get the boot he so richly deserves (but not until the new Republican governor takes office in January, right?).


7 posted on 11/15/2006 12:19:14 PM PST by seanmerc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Liz

Yep, if there is a Supreme Court vacancy, this will be the dirtiest fight ever. Schumer and company will take Supreme Court battles to the lowest levels ever.


8 posted on 11/15/2006 12:19:54 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz

To think that Alito's seat almost went to Harriet Miers - while we had a 55 to 45 majority!


9 posted on 11/15/2006 12:21:59 PM PST by Omega Man II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz

Thank you, Mr. Melman.


10 posted on 11/15/2006 12:23:16 PM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Omega Man II

I don't know about the rest of you but I am going to have a difficult listening to all of this the next couple of years! I am still in shock that aged hippies are in charge during war time. I am sick at heart and waking up to news with Pelosi, Murtha, Shumer and on and on about makes me want to stay in bed!


11 posted on 11/15/2006 12:25:19 PM PST by LYSandra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Judges are the most important,” said Mr. Schumer

he gets it, why didn't we ?

now, time to put holds on everyone and everything

gridlock...shutdown..blame Rats
12 posted on 11/15/2006 12:26:14 PM PST by stylin19a ("Klaatu Barada Nikto")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz

Dang see this is what you get to do when you are the majority. You get to vote on various candidates for Supreme Court. If we don't get the majority in the next election...we are screwed for a VERY long time. Between now and 2012 we will probably have to replace 6 of the justices at least.


13 posted on 11/15/2006 12:26:15 PM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz

Chuck is drunk with power. Here's hoping he wakes up with a terrible hangover. They say power corrupts, and when a party is already as corrupt as the RATS, they may become so obviously criminal that their MSM buddies will have to quit covering for them.

That may just be wishful thinking, since RATS have already gotten away with murder (teddy), rape (clinton), and treason (clinton and others).


14 posted on 11/15/2006 12:29:10 PM PST by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

I think Stephens or GInsberg will have an easier time retiring now that the Dems control the Senate.

And IMO if Bush and the GOP minority have some balls, they can still get a good pick.


15 posted on 11/15/2006 12:32:36 PM PST by Mr. Brightside
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
Dang see this is what you get to do when you are the majority. You get to vote on various candidates for Supreme Court.

Yes, it was a good thing we had a 55 to 45 majority during the Clinton years. We were able to use our majority muscle to stop left-wing ACLUer ideologues like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Ooops... wait, she passed with over 90 votes?

16 posted on 11/15/2006 12:32:39 PM PST by Omega Man II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Liz
What Chuck doesn't get is that that candidates who won were Pro-Life, moderates. He's swinging his party right. As for the Supreme Court--it's just a matter of time. Roe v. Wade is bad law. It will eventually be overturned.
17 posted on 11/15/2006 12:33:13 PM PST by adgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader

That would really be nice wouldn't it. I hope your statement turns out to be prophetic.


18 posted on 11/15/2006 12:33:35 PM PST by Clump (Your family may not be safe, but at least their library records will be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Brightside
And IMO if Bush and the GOP minority have some balls, they can still get a good pick.

Best bet would be a senator like Jeff Sessions. Chuckie Schumer wants to be on the Supreme Court, so won't want to set a precedent of opposing a member of the "club".

19 posted on 11/15/2006 12:34:06 PM PST by Omega Man II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Liz
There goes our chance to get another conservative SC Justice.

I'm beginning to see why Bush Sr. had to nominate Souter. I don't know the politics of the time, but I can understand why milquetoasts are sometimes nominated since none other can get thru.

20 posted on 11/15/2006 12:34:24 PM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz

Schmuckie's right on one thing: with a Dem majority they rule the judiciary committee, led by that 'rat Leahy. If they stick together they can stymie any Bush nominee in committee. A nominee will have to be a superlative legalist to get through (e.g. would Roberts and Alito get through this new senate?). Look what they did to Estrada for two years.


21 posted on 11/15/2006 12:34:31 PM PST by Rummyfan (Iraq: Give therapeutic violence a chance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clump

There is thread on here talking about this.


22 posted on 11/15/2006 12:35:36 PM PST by DarthVader (Conservatives aren't always right , but Liberals are almost always wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: adgirl
What Chuck doesn't get is that that candidates who won were Pro-Life, moderates. He's swinging his party right

That's exactly right, they ran as GOP lite, especially in the Hosue, but they will vote the radical left pelosi/schumer line.

23 posted on 11/15/2006 12:35:41 PM PST by Dane ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" Ronald Reagan, 1987)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

Sitting on some circuit nominee is one thing. Sitting on a Supreme Court nominee is a whole new ballgame.


24 posted on 11/15/2006 12:37:17 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: LYSandra

You're not alone I feel the same. And now to read that this arrogant ass is 'writing' a book! Aaack!


25 posted on 11/15/2006 12:37:24 PM PST by Rummyfan (Iraq: Give therapeutic violence a chance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Liz
“Congratulations Schumers!”

I predict that in the coming years the term "schumer" will take on the same meaning as "clymer".

26 posted on 11/15/2006 12:41:04 PM PST by 19th LA Inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz

Look for several leftie retirements on the court soon with Bush forced to choose moderates.


27 posted on 11/15/2006 12:42:17 PM PST by ez ("Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is." - Milton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz

Pride comes before the fall. Chucky should take a look at what just happened to his Republican buds.


28 posted on 11/15/2006 12:42:37 PM PST by Busywhiskers (The fool says in his heart, "There is no God".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right; AntiGuv; Torie
Sitting on some circuit nominee is one thing. Sitting on a Supreme Court nominee is a whole new ballgame.

It was either AntiGuv or Torie (forget which) who pointed out that senate rules require that all Supreme Court nominees get a floor vote. Despite the partisan atmosphere in DC, most senators still have friends on the other side. Bush could name Ben Nelson's conservative golfing buddy to the court, for example.

29 posted on 11/15/2006 12:42:56 PM PST by Omega Man II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Yep, if there is a Supreme Court vacancy, this will be the dirtiest fight ever. Schumer and company will take Supreme Court battles to the lowest levels ever.

Nope, there won't be a fight at all. They simply won't schedule a vote.

Recall how hard it was to get Alito and Roberts to a vote and that's when the Republicans had a clear and arguably filibuster-proof coalition.

Frist and his fellow incompetent traitors had their chance to take the issue to the mat and settle it once and for all via "the nuclear option" or "the Constitutional option", as you prefer, let the Dems stamp their little feet, declare them Out Of Order, and make it official that delaying tactics and refusing to vote was not an option, and they refused to do it.

So we're all screwed.

30 posted on 11/15/2006 12:45:44 PM PST by jiggyboy (Ten per cent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Liz

And this is news? Did he vote to confirm Alito? Answer - Schumer (D) No


31 posted on 11/15/2006 12:47:37 PM PST by b4its2late (FOOTBALL REFEREES: It's tough playing with us, but you can't play the game without us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: adgirl; TommyDale; jla
What Chuck doesn't get is that that candidates who won were Pro-Life, moderates. He's swinging his party right.

Thank you---I was waiting for an astute FReeper like you to come up with that insight.

There's no going back. Not only do the Dims have to look more rightish---but they have to be as pure as the driven snow. No less a liberal than Newsweak's Eleanor Clift said that if the Dims give a leadership position to, say, Alcee Hastings, an impeached former judge, they will have a two year majority.

Thus the dustup over Murtha's elevation has nothing to do with Iraq---but with his past dealings.

The Dims swinging right also drives Republicans even more rightward. Repubs cannot win without churchgoing conservatives. The Pubbies lost Tuesday b/c their base could not stomach the foisting of pro-abortion liberals like RNC's Mehlman and Guiliani on the party.

32 posted on 11/15/2006 12:49:18 PM PST by Liz (Nearly all men can stand adversity, but to test a man's character, give him power. Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Liz

OK, Chuckie, let's rock & roll. Who are the 2 members of the USSC most likely to croak or be unable to continue? Stevens, 86, and Ginsburg, 73 and with cancer. Both big libs. Fine, deadlock the Senate, the SC can pump out 4-3 decisions in favor of the original interpretation of the Constitution for a long time.


33 posted on 11/15/2006 12:49:43 PM PST by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Omega Man II

unless there is some health related incident, I don't think Bush 43 will get another appointment.


34 posted on 11/15/2006 12:51:15 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
"Judges are the most important,” said Mr. Schumer.

"Power is the most important, " said Mr. Schemer. There, fixed it.

We understand you just fine, comrade.

35 posted on 11/15/2006 12:51:24 PM PST by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

Stevens is 86 and Ginsburg has had cancer and is 73. I don't wish these people ill (no pun intended), but statistics say that people with these characteristics don't tend to live a long time.


36 posted on 11/15/2006 12:56:50 PM PST by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Liz

If there's a vacancy on the court, wouldn't that most likely occur if they lost a Leftist?

I think Schmuckie Schumer may find out we'll have little incentive to correct that if so.


37 posted on 11/15/2006 12:59:34 PM PST by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy

we didn't need to use the "nuclear option" to get Roberts and Alito through - and the delays were minimal, mostly due to Specter wanting to be "agreeable". now I will agree, that kindness got us nothing.


38 posted on 11/15/2006 1:00:11 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr

Look at all their ages. The 4 liberal judges average 15 years older than the 4 conservative judges. Liberals are going to have to pull out every stop to keep the court from going right.


39 posted on 11/15/2006 1:00:20 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

Basically, it came down to Montana.

Those folks in Montana who either voted libertarian, or stayed home and didn't vote for Burns - are the reason Roe v Wade will likely never be overturned now.


40 posted on 11/15/2006 1:01:37 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Liz; melancholy
"Judges are the most important,...One more justice would have made it a 5-4 conservative hard-right majority for a long time. That won't happen."

Who says the words chosen to make a point are not important? He wants the American people to think the "right" is the "hard-right".

This smug "man" may have absolutely nothing to say about, and I am going to pray to that end every single day.

This is also proof positive that for the Democrats, who cannot jam their agenda down the throats of the public in elections, the courts are their only vehicle to achieve their ends. This election proved this, among other thing. They cannot run hard left candidates and win UNLESS they disguise them as "moderates". To this day, I do not know what a "moderate" is!!

Nancee

41 posted on 11/15/2006 1:01:52 PM PST by Nancee ((Nancee Lynn Cheney))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seanmerc

BUMP!!!


42 posted on 11/15/2006 1:03:13 PM PST by Nancee ((Nancee Lynn Cheney))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Brightside

They need another John Roberts, i.e. someone with a record, but not too much of one, who is incredibly smart and makes the D's look stupid during questioning.

If we have one or two more Roberts waiting in the wings, we'll be fine. If not, we're in trouble, because we can't get another Alito.


43 posted on 11/15/2006 1:03:17 PM PST by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: adgirl

no, they RAN as Dem moderates. that has nothing to do with how they will vote as part of the Dem majority.

The voters who voted for these "moderate" Dems - are suckers plain and simple. Especially the evangelicals who crossed over.

Does anyone really think that Bob Casey Jr is going to lead the charge for a Bush appointed pro-life justice to replace Ginsburg or Stevens?


44 posted on 11/15/2006 1:04:30 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: zbigreddogz

it would be Diane Sykes, that would be my choice for someone who who have a chance at being confirmed.


45 posted on 11/15/2006 1:07:57 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Liz

Chuckie Cheese Schmucker needs to be knocked down a few pegs. His lies and weekly Sunday press conferences are enough to cause most non-followers to get ill.


46 posted on 11/15/2006 1:08:44 PM PST by kevinm13 (The Main Stream Media is dead! Fox News Channel and Freerepublic Rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

Read up on her. Sounds like a good pick to me if she can do well in the hearing. I wish Roberts could do every hearing. He looked like he was schooling 4 year olds when the D's asked him questions. He made them look really, really dumb. It was amazing.


47 posted on 11/15/2006 1:12:41 PM PST by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
"...mostly due to Specter want to be 'agreeable'."

I do not think that Specter is agreeable, ever; muchless acceptable! I also do not believe that Specter conducts himself and the hearings the way he does to come across as "agreeable". He does it becuase there is no such thing as a "moderate". Arlen Specter, in my opinion, is a liberal!!!

We lost Senator Santorum because he does not masquarade as that which he is not. But we will have to dynamite Specter to get rid of him, ever! This is just the sad truth!

Nancee

48 posted on 11/15/2006 1:13:44 PM PST by Nancee ((Nancee Lynn Cheney))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a

"We" still don't get it with a large number here talking about voting third party in '08.


49 posted on 11/15/2006 1:19:43 PM PST by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Nancee
To this day, I do not know what a "moderate" is!!

Depending on the definition of the word "is" is? :-)

For the left, a moderate is a professional liar. For the right, a moderate is a RINO.

Hard Right and Hard Left is a driving lesson.

Noodle Right and Noodle Left, we gotta ask Martha Stewart.

50 posted on 11/15/2006 1:25:19 PM PST by melancholy (Bella bint Pulusi, the Sneaker of the Out-House, she is a shoe-in!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-202 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson