Skip to comments.Schumer On Judicial Appointees: We Will Change the Rules to ‘Fill up The DC Circuit’
Posted on 03/20/2013 2:43:15 PM PDT by neverdem
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Democrats will fill up the DC circuit one way or another, even it means changing the rules in the Senate to get nominees confirmed.
At a Mar. 10 dinner event, the New York senator criticized the GOP for rejecting President Barack Obamas nomination for judge in the 10th circuit, which currently has four vacancies.
They just rejected on specious grounds a fine New Yorker named Caitlin Halligan for the second time," said Schumer. "Our strategy will be to nominate four more people for each of those vacancies [on the 10th Circuit Court]. And if they filibuster all of them, it will give those of us that want to change the rules and not allow 60 votes to dominate the Senate but require a talking-filibuster to prevail. So we will fill up the DC circuit one way or another.
Earlier this month, Presidents Obamas nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit failed to garner the 60 votes needed to overcome opposition and get a vote.
In January of this year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) made a move to do away with the requirement of 60 votes to overcome minority opposition and force a talking-filibuster. The move would have required senators to hold the floor and debate in order to prevent votes on matters they oppose. However, the manuever to force a talking-filibuster was removed in the filibuster reform deal between crafted by Reid and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
Schumer told the audience at the Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats dinner why he felt the need to have Halligan seated as a judge: We have a federal court system and the second most important court in that system is the D.C. Court of Appeals because it controls all kinds of government decisions.
There are now four vacancies on the court and its dominated by the hard right," he said. "Heres what they have done in the last year: they have overturned the EPAs ability to regulate existing coal plants which send their pollution here and kill the Adirondack mountains. They have rendered the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) impotent by saying that the SEC cant pass rulings unless they do what is called a cost-benefit analysis, which ties any rulings to go after our financial institutions in knots.
And third, they have ruled that recess appointments couldnt be taken into account," said Schumer. "Why did they do that? They did that because the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) which has finally begun to swing the pendulum a little bit back so that workers and unions could actually organize people as opposed to the rulings under the Bush administration --which for eight years -- but now they are going to render those decisions moot. So we have to fill the 10th DC circuit.
Of course. The Republicans never have a good, principled reason for anything they do. It's always just petty politics. Projection much?
I'd love to meet this guy in an alley.
#6 Well, Schumer is an idiot, a liar and dangerous. Three reasons why he should drop dead yesterday. I’ve been around politics since the late 1960’s and I rank him as one of the top five slimest pricks I’ve ever seen (and I’ve seen a lot of them as a Hill correspondent).
Sometimes I think God created people like Schumer just to show the rest of the human race what a real nasty, egotistical asshole looks like.
“We Will Change the Rules to...”
1. Any conservative who can relocate is needed in Texas to help offset their plan of creating a permanent voting bloc of illegal aliens with that “One stroke of the pen, law of the land” crap. Once we lose Texas’ electoral votes, it’s over for all of us.
2. The Socialist propensity for “changing the rules” is why any further discussion of the “eligibility” of Cruz, Rubio, et al is ridiculous. That ship has left the harbor. That plane has taken off. (Insert favorite euphemism here). WHY on earth should we continue to “play by the rules” with our sanctimonious little heads held high while our mortal enemies are trying to slit our throat?
If the Democrats insist on packing the court with ideological partisans, then the next time conservatives have the presidency + the Senate, then they can do the same.
And, with majorities in both Houses + the Presidency and no filibuster, they can change the number of Scotus justices to suit their needs.
Economic regulation again appeared before the Supreme Court in the Gold Clause Cases. In his first week after taking office, Roosevelt closed the nation's banks, acting from fears that gold hoarding and international speculation posed a danger to the national monetary system. He based his actions on the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917. Congress quickly ratified Roosevelt's action with the Emergency Banking Act. A month later, the President issued Executive Order 6102, confiscating all gold coins, bullion, and certificates, requiring they be surrendered to the government by May 1, 1933 in exchange for currency. Congress also passed a joint resolution cancelling all gold clauses in public and private contracts, stating such clauses interfered with its power to regulate U.S. currency.
While the Roosevelt administration waited for the court to return its judgment, contingency plans were made for an unfavorable ruling. Ideas circulated within the White House to withdraw the right to sue the government to enforce gold clauses. Attorney General Cummings suggested the court should be immediately packed to ensure a favorable ruling. Roosevelt himself ordered the Treasury to manipulate the market to give the impression of turmoil, although Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau refused. Roosevelt also drew up executive orders to close all stock exchanges and prepared a radio address to the public.
On February 18, 1935, the Justices' decisions in all three cases were announced; all supported the government's position by a narrow 54 majority. Chief Justice Hughes wrote the opinion for each case, finding the government had plenary power to regulate money. As such, the abrogation of both private and public contractual gold clauses was within congressional reach when such clauses represented a threat to Congress's control of the monetary system. Speaking for the Court in the Perry case, Hughes's opinion was remarkable: in a judicial tongue-lashing not seen since Marbury v. Madison, Hughes chided Congress for an act which, while legal, was regarded as clearly immoral. However, Hughes ultimately found the plaintiff had no cause of action, and thus no standing to sue the government.
Dead Red Ted Kennedy is smiling in his grave.
NY is such a great State............so sad that so many of the politicos are such fools, and only want to ruin it through their insipid liberal idiocies.
Anyone that Chuck Schumer likes is probably unfit to sit on the bench.
Senator Charles Schumer takes a stroll down a Manhattan street.
Give it time. The New England States are on the way to bankruptcy and the government funded leftists will be hard put to keep their jobs. Rhode Island is already seeing this.
Why is there not one republican with the gonads to slap Schumer up side the head? In fact, it would only take one slap to hit Schumer, McCain and Graham. Sorta’ like the three stooges slap.
...the train has left the station, the other shoe has dropped, the shit has hit the fan...
Come to “Hokie-mama”, as one of our grandsons used to say. It’s the only state I know of that has an automatic weapons festival every year.
The only requirement is that anyone who moves here must vote conservative.
Thank you. I like those better. lol.
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.