"Given this vacancy, the best way to defend those rights is for a bipartisan majority in the Senate to lock arms and reject a Supreme Court nominee..."
Is this a joke? Has he met Mitch McConnell? A bipartisan majority...ENOUGH! This milquetoast approach and attitude by Democrats is why we have government by a minority of Republicans in America today. What losers these Democrats are.
There is no bipartisanship on the Republican side of the congress (just ask Merrick Garland) which means there is NO bipartisanship in the congress. Schumer and his defeatist ilk need to get out of the way so that a new generation of strong Democrats can fight the fight against the Trump GOP.
6
Let us not forget Chuck Schumer's cozy relationship with Trump before he became president. Look it up: repeated acceptancev of campaign contributions and even an appearance on the Apprentice. Schumer is a Trump enabler, not a leader of any form of resistance. Let's have no illusions about the hard work ahead.
10
Of course, Senator Schumer knows that Roe v. Wade did not *establish* a constitutional right, that would be called an Amendment. He also knows that even if Roe v. Wade was completely overturned, it would have zero effect on the legal nature of abortions, save for those states who might (rightfully) act to outlaw them.
Senator Schumer, like all good Democrats, is playing upon fear and emotions because that is their stock in trade. To encourage impartial analysis, critical thinking and applying the constitution with those tools, means the democrats lose every election - forever.
5
Chuck, how come you have not yet figured out Trump's tactics? As you yourself have practiced many times during your political career, facts do not matter in politics to change minds.
So Trump took an extreme position about wanting to end Roe v. Wade as a tactic to push you to rally your troops on the issue. Your professional activists will spend all their energy and money on the issue, and keep the news networks constantly obsessing about it. Your troops will feel better fighting for the right cause! Then Trump will nominate somebody who in fact will state that he will not change established precedents during the confirmation hearings. Your base will be elated to have won the battle that Trump gave them to win and his nominee will be confirmed with a few democrats supporting him/her.
Then the Democrats will lose this coming mid-term election, and you will wonder as to what happened!
4
Of course all of Trump's Supreme Court picks will kill Roe vs Wade. They're not supposed to be asked that question directly, but that's basically irrelevant. If they're on Trump's list, they'll do what he wants. Hopefully Senator Collins will admit this to herself instead of hiding behind a weak excuse.
7
"Given this vacancy, the best way to defend those rights is for a bipartisan majority in the Senate to lock arms and reject a Supreme Court nominee who would overturn them. It will not happen on its own."
No Senator, it will not happen at all.
That is precisely the type of deluded Pollyannaish reasoning that has made Chuckles the leader of the minority leader of our Senate and put Donald Trump in the White House.
The current Democratic Congressional leadership is weak, silly and must be replaced for our nation's natural Democratic majorities to be restored to Congress.
6
After the last few years, I can't believe ANYTHING Schumer says. What a big political gas bag!
9
Also tell us Minnesotans why you and yours didn't stand up for Al Franken. Al was a passionate voice that DID connect with voters. Funny that. The Repubs and their highly skilled covert dirty tricksters are always ahead of the game. It's a bonus when the Democratic Party colludes in taking down their own.
8
Why do Democrats continue to bring knives to gun fights? Who are they scared of losing? Moderate Republicans? Really? At a time when the president sides with Russia over the United States I'm amazed at the many Senate Democrats--you know, the Senate(!) where gerrymandering is not an issue--who refuse to turn out their base because they're afraid of...what?...being accused of providing support to such "red" ideas such as single payer plans or keeping hedge fund managers out of our Social Security funds.
The mantra of the "political center" is the clearest sign in today's political climate of a groveling weakness and sclerotic thinking. Our rights would not have to "hang in balances" if Democrats stopped placating a kind of voter--the Reagan Democrat--that has long since left the theater.
Seriously, newer, younger leadership is needed to inspire a generation of voters. The current creaky leadership of the Democratic party is out of step and, like a union with a serious governance problem, filled with an old guard who should step aside, let others inspire and lead, and do their work behind closed doors. Minority House Leader Nancy Pelosi is 78; minority whip Steny Hoyer is 79; minority Senate leader Chuck Schumer is the baby at 67; minority Senate whip Dick Durbin is 74. Other than Mitch McConnell at 74 years of age, much of the Republican, especially House, leadership --Cornyn (65), Ryan (48), McCarthy (53), Scalise (52)—has figured it out.
4
Democrats didn't bring a knife to a gunfight on Gorsuch. They simply didn't bring enough votes. When they have the votes, they ram things through (remember Obamacare?) with the best of 'em!
3
That was when Harry Reid led the Senate Dems. He wasn’t a coward.
Looks like poor Chuck is finally getting his due, particularly from his fellow New Yorkers. Why don't these old men and women (Nancy, this means you) get over themselves, stop thinking the world will stop spinning unless they are at the helm, and retire with their millions and just shut up.
4
I like them. get some manners.
1
To liberals: I hope your Jill Stein protest vote was worth it!
9
You have no idea how big your problem is already, and it's about to get far bigger.
2
To centrist neoliberal "Democrats," I hope you feel your pre-anointed Rockefeller Republican Clinton candidate was worth it. I voted for her, but it took a big nose plug to do it.
6
The tilt of the SCOTUS is completely reversible since unitary control of the POTUS & Congress can simply increase the number of justices - i.e., a 4-5 loss can turn into a 6-5 gain.
Disappointing that Justice Kennedy turned out to be just another political operative and not an advocate for jurisprudence.
Senator Schumer, the all of the Democrats in the Senate (even the ones who like to play Republican so they can continue to be re-elected) desperately need to find new legal strategies, such as by being absent from the Senate floor, thereby not permitting the Republicans to have a quorum; or some other such potential means to put the brakes on any chance of approving the judicial nomination of a President currently UNDER INVESTIGATION!
5
The GOP's patrons are wealthy oligarchs. They have purchased the Congress, presidency, and now apparently court that they want, to do their bidding.
I don't blame the Democrats much for not always winning against such odds. They've made mistakes, but, by and large, they've done as well as could be expected.
We need to change the game. We need to chose our own leaders and not let the wealthy chose them for us.
But until then, understanding the weak cards we've dealt our Democratic representatives, I would nonetheless encourage them 'once more into the breach, dear friends, once more.'
1
Given his desire to criminalize free speech that criticizes Israel's abominable treatment of Palestinians and its actions in clear violation of international law with his anti-BDS bill as well as his more general support and votes for the Patriot Act and Homeland Security, including ICE which is now committing crimes against humanity daily, Chuck Schumer is an exceedingly thin, soggy reed upon which to rest any hopes of preserving or restoring the rights of Americans.
9
The most famous socialist manifesto:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. . . “
Our country was founded on these principles, not as Reagan suggested that we are “rugged individuals” in competition with each other.
If Republican policies only applied to Republicans, our problems would soon be solved.
Unfortunately I live in a highly gerrymandered purple state and both of our senators are anti choice. But let's forget Roe v. Wade. It has long been dying a slow death. This president wants to take us back to Jim Crow. Gay marriage is also in jeopardy.
4
Write to my Senator, if you live in Tennessee why bother?
One is retiring and will be most likely replaced by a Trump toadie and the other has not yet demonstrated much in the way of free will in all his time in office.
5
Is this the same Chuck Schumer who applauded Trump for opening the US embassy in Jerusalem. Thought so. He's got nothing at all to say to me.
13
Senator Schumer, it's time for you and your Democratic colleagues to stop playing nice and to embrace your inner ruthlessness when it comes to politics, just as the GOP has done since Newt Gingrich shut down the government in the Clinton Administration. With all due respect to Michelle Obama, when they go low, we have to go lower. There is too much at stake with Trump in the White House. The GOP has already stolen one Supreme Court spot; they cannot be allowed to have another. Whatever it takes, it needs to get done. And maybe, just maybe, you and your fellow Dem leaders can take a page from Ocasio-Cortez's playbook and start speaking the truth directly, forcefully, and with conviction instead of pandering to corporate donors. The Resistance is in full swing, as witnessed by the hundreds of more progressive candidates, most of them women, that have taken up the cause. When will our leadership in Congress and the Senate do the same?
11
Schumer can't do much when he is not the majority leader.
Right, and Obama couldn't do much when he was President of the United States.
And it’s because of Schumer and Obama that we have Gorsuch on the Supreme Court now instead of Merrick Garland.
I am very uncomfortable with a so called think tank called the Heritage Foundation believing that it knows what's best for the United States of America. They are a large group of conservatives that along with the Federalists gave Trump a list of like-minded judges to fill the Supreme Court vacancies. Of course, they have to get confirmed first.
Let's not pretend that these conservatives really have our country's best interests at heart. As an independent voter, I don't have too many problems with certain good old fashioned conservative ideals, but when it becomes a zero sum game, win at any cost enterprise, corruption and dirty tricks becomes the currency of this movement.
They claim to be pro-life, but won't lift a finger to feed, educate, or house children, American children. They pass a tax bill that gives a huge tax break to the most wealthy among us. Fiscal responsibilty becomes then a vicious joke in trying to pass laws to curtail Social Security, Medicare, the ACA, and programs that help working families. The dark underbelly of the far right is a litany of conspiracy theories about the deep state, or the FBI, the Mueller Investigation, or some strange story on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. And a large portion of the electorate believes all these lies. They have become invested in them.
I don't know what will happen, but I'm not very hopeful. Nonetheless, people need to vote the corruption out of the House and Senate starting this Fall.
10
Funny how "settled law" wasn't an issue for Chuck when gay marriage came to court. And I really, really want a few minutes with his infallible crystal ball...as he seems to know something that conservatives don't--which is how to pick someone who won't tilt wildly left under the weight of a Justice's robes. There's a track record there, and not such a good one for conservatives. And perhaps more to the point, why are we talking in political terms about a theoretically nonpolitical entity? Shouldn't we talk about orthodox judging--ruling on the text of the law applied to the facts--versus unorthodox judging of finding a result whatever the law may say (and yes, that charge may be leveled against both 'conservative' and 'liberal' judges). As for me, I want a judge who rules justly--not "conservatively" or "liberally."
6
Democratic leadership and all Democrats better find a way to motivate a MASSIVE voter turnout in November. Because that's the ONLY way to overcome republican cheating, gerrymandering, russian meddling etc.
Frankly nothing else matters. IF Democrats do not GAIN control of the House AND Senate there is NOTHING stopping trump, mcCONnell, and the rest of the right wing takeover.
Muddled messages, pandering to the way left (let's get rid of ICE) ain't gonna get it done.
Mr Obama and the ever popular Michele seem to be MIA. How about they put off book writing and 'going high' and get out in the Country and HELP US take back OUR Democracy. No time like the present.
4
One person is conspicuously missing in this coming fight: John McCain. He has not fulfilled his duties as a senator at all this year. Sadly, he is dying. But he owes his state and his country the duty to resign when he can no longer perform. That time has come.
Resign, John McCain, and let someone else (and no, not your wife) take your place.
1
Name a Republican Senator who has "fulfilled his duties as a senator at all this year." They have all, as a group, let down their country by refusing to be any kind of check or balance on our destructive and incompetent administration. With SCOTUS rolling over even before Kennedy decided to hang it up, the three-branch government designed and envisioned by the Founders is no more. Let John McCain go out any way he damned pleases. He owes these traitors nothing.
3
Brava, Alice.
Gee, Chuck, maybe the moribund "Democratic" Party "leadership" should have thought about this twenty, twenty-five years ago, instead of smugly and self-interestedly becoming neoliberal, centrist and coastal-elitist. Maybe it shouldn't have been asleep at the switch while Karl Rove ran circles around it winning statehouses across the country to control subsequent gerrymandering. Maybe it shouldn't have been in a swoon to Wall Street, which you know so well. Maybe it shouldn't have done so well to prove Will Rogers's lament, "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
The Republicans repulse me, but the Democrats infuriate me.
10
Too late Schumer. Time for you and Pelosi to go away. Why didn't you fight for Garland? Sure we know the excuse, you thought Clinton was going to win, not a good enough excuse. Just on principle you should have fought for him and not let the Republicans push you around. We need a new generation of Democrats who can address the needs of US citizens and most of all know how to achieve success. You and your gang are not it.
5
Senator Schumer and the Senate Democrats let Merrick Garland go without a fight, and they let the government shutdown end without a deal to save DREAMers. We now live increasingly under a despotic, kleptocratic, would-be monarchy.
It's time for Democrats to take a leaf from the Founding Farms do something really bold to turn our Ship of State around. If not, if I have the comfort that--in the words of a recent headline from this newspaper--"Millennial socialists are coming." And I will welcome them with open arms.
7
Whoops, I meant "Founding Fathers and do" not "Founding Farms do" (wince). Thanks, autocorrect.
I highly recommend Season 2 of The Handmaid's Tale --and Season 1, and the novel by Atwood, of course--and watch how easily a nation can lose its way by the rise of an extremist Evangelical minority in the midst of an environmental crisis that causes a decrease in fertility. Suddenly, it becomes criminal to be gay. Nooses appear in Fenway Park to punish women who dare to assert rights over their bodies. People considered "unpersons" are shipped off to perform toxic cleanup jobs, recalling scenes from Nazi concentration camps. Border control at the airports finds specious reasons to not let people cross the border. People have to use an "underground railroad" to escape, reminding us that for a long part of American history, slaves lived in terror when they tried to escape (and also when they didn't). All of this can (and in some cases did) happen here. We have to fight for freedom for all people against the narrow minded intolerance that currently holds political sway. We don't want to go back to the 1840s, or the 1950s...
4
We have a crook in the White House - Trump - who wants to nominate a judge who may have to make decisions that directly affect the case against the crook in the White House.
You and the other Democrats must work with moderate Republicans to stop the crook from co-opting the entire justice system for himself. Otherwise, the entire country will be at the mercy of a criminal who believes himself to be above the law.
9
Here is an idea: let’s get Kamala Harris to take the leadership role in the senate from spineless Chuck and see how a superb California ex-Attorney General can turn things around. She will do a fantastic job, get national recognition to run in 2020 and we get rid of Chuck the Pedant and block a disastrous SCOTUS appointment. She will make sure Roe v. Wade and other hard fought rights will continue existing for us all.
7
I'll vote for Trump if the Democrats put up another putrid candidate like Hillary.
@swampiz: putrid candidate? Kamala Harris? Do you even know what you are talking about?
2
Kampala Harris may be a good senator from California, but she is no leader. I feel no connection with her at all.
2
Senator Schumer; you are preaching to the choir. You need to be more of a reader than a writer. Try reading these comments as the majority are from your constituents and we are all reaching out to you with good points and advice to ponder.
3
As Maine goes, so goes the nation. I am filled with admiration for Senator Susan Collins and her willingness to keep an open mind about Roe V. Wade.....But you know, I find myself thinking of what an admirable tradition we have here in New York, too, of great liberal Republicans....I'm a lifelong Democrat, but I think I can remember voting for Kenneth Keating. I know I voted for Jacob Javits, and from start to finish, I voted for Nelson Rockefeller...arguably the second-greatest governor the state of New York ever had (after FDR). I am now wondering who the Republicans will be running against Andrew Cuomo........I so much hope they choose wisely, as there is one governor's mansion that could do with swift cleaning out....
2
Senator Collins has an "open mind" regarding Roe v Wade? I heard her say just this past week that it is "settled law." What's open about that?
Susan Collins has, more than once, posed as a moderate and given the nation hope that she might be one, only to vote in lockstep with the Republican leadership in the end. Fool me once . . .
I am terribly disappointed in her gutlessness. I'm hoping "as Maine goes" she'll find herself unemployed come 2020. She's got a solid looking opponent in Dr. Cathleen London and the doctor orders some commitment to women's health care. Susan isn't likely to deliver on that. She should be replaced.
2
Susan Collins did a great job discussing Roe v. Wade this past Sunday on the talk shows. What got the most press was her comment about not supporting someone who wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade. What didn't get aired were her other reasonable comments. One response was to the accusation that Gorsuch was likely to overturn Roe: Gorsuch wrote a book about precedence. He was unlikely to ignore it. Every time someone tried to bait her, she graciously responded and didn't allow herself to get sucked into the media's nonsense. It was no match for her, but they sure tried.
2
I am fed up with the hypocrisy. Schumer bemoans the possibility of the SC overruling Roe but undoubtedly applauded the Roe decision, though each threatened or threatens longstanding laws.
We similarly each feel satisfied when our views get reflected in laws that almost half the people oppose but feel unjustly oppressed when other laws get enacted that are contrary to our views.
We need to create/support a principle to be consistently applied regardless of the particular issue. As a believer in the primacy of individual liberty, I suggest/support the following:
“The governments (federal and state) should never pass a law that restricts or infringes upon any citizen’s personal liberty, except in the rare case where such an infringement is viewed as essential for the common good, as confirmed by it having the support of the overwhelming (e.g. 2/3 or 3/4) majority of the people. “
By that criteria:
1) In most places abortion decisions would be left to the mother, except late-term abortions, which likely would be illegal (other than when mother’s life is at risk).
2) There would be comprehensive (no loophole) national screening/registry for gun ownership, bans on automatic weapons and limits on ammo clips. Further restrictions (e.g. open/concealed carry) would apply only in states where widely supported.
Unreasonable?
If you want a law, persuade people. Having 51% support is not a mandate and never a reasonable justification for forcing your views upon another person.
2
A republican Supreme Court is no better or no worse than a republican Congress or a republican White House.
Any Supreme Court decision can be rectified by the writing of a constitutionally correct law.
So vote the republicans out of the Congress and out of the White House, starting this November.
8
Tell us something we don't already know Chuck. Then tell us why all three branches of government are now owned by Republicans a- mostly the far right kind.
I am a life long Democrat and will vote Democratic in the upcoming elections. But I have lost faith in the Party. I think the dye is cast now. Democratic leaders like yourself have failed to connect with voters or passionately express alarm about what is happening to our country.
You are part of the problem not the solution.
39
The dems lost me with that absurd drumming out of town of Al Franken. You have a man who lies at every opportunity, a man filled with hatred, an ignorant, stupid man who is piece by piece dismantling our country. And what was the biggest stand the party took this year? To gang up on an outstanding senator for a stupid prank he pulled before he even was a senator. This fixation on ideological purity is like sending home a senior firefighter in the midst of a 5 alarm fire because he has too many parking tickets. Do you think that Winston Churchill was an angel? People who make a difference, and I include Bill Clinton in this list, are often flawed individuals. But they also have heart, determination, intelligence and the ability to get things done. The oh-so-pure Democrats in their white robes will, I'm sure, be very satisfied with themselves when the country is burnt to the ground. Allying himself with Senator Gillibrand's rush to judgement was an act of extreme cowardice on the part of Schumer.
48
Ms. Vilen - True or not, hammering from within right now is ill timed, I think, because that's the kind of message that deflates Democratic participation in elections. Let's get a house of Congress in November and then we can weigh in heavily on our Democratic leadership as to what we want them to do. Between now and then, which is an infinitesimally small amount of time, the message we should be united on is VOTE, VOTE, VOTE! And when someone asks why, if someone actually needs to, the answer is that the Republicans are almost finished burying Constitutional checks and balances alive, and decency besides. I'm very glad to see Senator Schumer tell it from the mountaintop, as I was when Gov. Cuomo wrote his piece the other day, and I hope they keep at it on all wavelengths. So far the only consistent, regular messaging we've been getting on a national scale is the ill wind of Mr. Trump.
Its interesting that you will still vote Democrat even though you have lost faith in party leaders like Schumer. Our present economy is "the best ever". Our enemies and friends alike are now concerned that the bottomless largess of America real has a bottom. The freedom of the press is so free it is almost out of control. It says anything about anybody anytime truth be damned. No need to be alarmed about our country. It is in the best shape since the 50s. I know. Now you do to.
1
This is about as absurd an argument as I have seen from Sen. Schumer. If you look at the threats to constitutionally enumerated rights, the only ones I see threatened are being threatened by the Left, not by Trump. Sure, Trump says rather ridiculous things about the press, but has he done anything other than insult members of the media, which is something quite a few Presidents have done? The only "threats" I've seen from him had to do with members of the media doing things like telling outright lies and participating in the "culture of un-sourced leaks" in Washington, where it is arguable whether or not the media might be legally culpable. But, the other rights? The left seeks to compel speech, abridge free speech, subjugate religious beliefs, deny freedom of association, dispose of the Second Amendment as a whole, deal selectively with the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and so on. Meanwhile Trump managed to truly surprise me by appointing an Associate Justice of the SCOTUS who had never been overturned by that court. Conservative or not, that is a rather solid sign that this Justice is dedicated to a serious scholarship of the law and Constitution. He just might surprise us again. So long as his pick is libertarian in spirit, and also a serious scholar of the law and Constitution, I'm far more assured of the protection of my rights and others under the law than I am by letting the Progressive Left have its way.
5
Sen. Schumer, here's a better idea: you and all the Dems shut down the Senate by staying our of Washington so a necessary quorum can't be achieved.
2
A quorum is 51 Senators. All Democrats may stay home. It would provide for more civility in government.
4
Further - write my senator? I voted for him!
Personally I feel much better having the Supreme Court deciding what my rights are than I would if the decisions were being made by Schumer, Pelosi, and the rest of the Democratic Party losership.
6
Really? I'm sure you'd not feel that way, Pono, if all nine justices were liberal leaning. Then how you would howl! Hypocrites that you republicans are, you have forgotten how you shrieked about 'activist judges' when Sotomayor and Kagen were appointed. Now here's trump, promising all kinds of activism (overturning Roe v Wade is already openly discussed!). Where are your clucking sounds about judges with agendas? If it's wrong when a Democrat does it, is it wrong when a Republican does it? Serious question. I'll bet I won't get a reasonable response. Just more 'losership' insults.
2
Still, very little. Motivate people to turn their feelings into action. No more complaints. Enough of that, don’t you think?
1
If Roe v Wade is abolished, abortions will still happen just like they did before abortions were legal. However, the abortion doctors, some of them, were actually butchers who did not have a medical degree and did more to harm women that wanted or needed abortions.
The best thing would be a method, such as a pill, that could cause an abortion without the government knowing anything about it.
4
There are many practically foolproof methods to avoid getting pregnant in the first place. They save the expense and the pain (physical and mental) of an abortion.
1
What are you even talking about, betty? There IS a pill. You republicans refuse to allow it cuz it's a sinful sinful Plan B. And I'd like to see ANY statistical evidence of merit that abortion providers did much more harm to women than help them. There isn't such evidence. C'mon, people. Let's hear why activism this obvious is just OK cuz it's your team. What an unAmerican concept.
1
That exists already.
I’m not sure people understand the purpose of this oped. Schumer is signaling to his caucus that there can be no defections. The three Democratic Senators that voted for Gorsuch do not get a pass this time.
5
You are likely correct in your view of this op-ed. However, all that may be easier said than done. If the red-state Democrats running for re-election vote against the nominee, their appreciable Trump-supporting base will vote them out. If they vote for the nominee, they will lose support of the Democratic leadership and the money from liberal donors. Rock vs. hard place.
In truth, Trump's conservative justice will win almost certainly win nomination. The Democrats are in position to only make noise at this point.
Oh, also, if they keep up advocating for "open borders" (via abolishing ICE), harassment of Trump officials (via Aunty Maxine) and repealing the tax cuts (crumbs per Ms. Pelosi). Their needed Blue Wave will become purple, turning to red. Add to these far-left narratives would be the vitriol associated with the SCOTUS nomination process and Republicans will swarm to the polls like moths to a flame.
Be very careful, Sen. Schumer, I fear you are playing right into President Trump's hands.
1
A “conservative” justice is not an activist justice.
2
But is regressive Justice is certainly an activist judge!
That leaves Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Roberts out of the mix. These "conservatives" are the most activist of all time. See Janus, Heller, Citizens United, Trinity Lutheran.
2
Well, when trump has told his cult members over and over that he'll for sure nominate SC justices who will 'be pro-life', what do you think he means? It's not that conservative = activist. It's that activist motives, clearly expressed = activist. Does that make it clearer?
Our rights are constitutionally guaranteed so Chuck is misguided.
4
At some point, the denouments of "Mueller time" will arrive at SCOTUS. Shall a sitting president under various indictments (and they will certainly come) be allowed to appoint members to the highest court, which said court may very likely weigh on his fate?
10
You expect more out of Robert Mueller than he can deliver. It's become clear that there is nothing for him to find. No, the CIA did not kill John Kennedy. No, the moon landings were not faked. No, Barack Obama was not born in Kenya. And no, Donald Trump did not collude with Russia to win the presidency.
Donald Trump was elected president, and has every right to act as president until and unless he is impeached and convicted. Those like Robert Mueller who are harming his presidency are harming our country. If Robert Mueller cared about his country, his investigation would be over.
2
We ought to see Supreme Court justices for what they are: at-will employees. If/when the Dems get back in power in the Senate, impeach them all and start over with 9 non- (not bi-) partisan judges. Will impeachment set a new "precedent?" It might but I think McConnell crossed over that bridge 2 years ago. This is going to be VERY UGLY for the next decade or so. Maybe we'll get lucky and the coming climate disaster will take our minds off our internal troubles.
5
You'd need 60 Senators and control of the House to impeach. The last time Democrats had that scenario, when Ted Kennedy died and they were slapping together ObamaCare, the Commonwealth of Mass. actually voted in a Republican to stop them.
It's too soon in the collective memory for you to try that again. Heck, people are just starting to forget that you are the party of slavery and the KKK, with your tearing down of statues.
Senator Schumer- The time to fight was for Garland to get a hearing and a vote in '16. The Democrats should have been on a full court press to pressure Mitch McConnell to give a hearing and hold a vote. Instead the Democrats made the decision not to fight expecting Clinton to be elected. You are one of the senior leaders of the party. That fight was yours to take up, and Gorsuch therefore sits on your shoulders. Now President Trump gets a second appointment in his first term.
I'm a NY'er, you are my Senator, and I do not think you're doing a great job for NY'ers. Preaching to the choir in the NYT's isn't fighting for us. You and the rest of the party have to go out and articulate a vision for the future that the masses can understand and get behind in swing states. How can a party that consistently tries to dismantle unions have the support of the NYFD and NYPD? As a leader of the Democrats you and the rest of the leadership team must find a way to craft an easy message that will appeal to people that don't spend a lot of time thinking about politics. You're getting out messaged consistently.
Either figure it out, or get out of the way and let a younger generation of Democrats steer the ship.
11
Sen. Schumer, have you talked to Justice Kennedy about delaying his retirement - pointing out that his retirement allows Trump to select a member of what will become his jury?
Have you and Rep. Pelosi considered telling all Democrat House members and Senators to stay home after July 4th and campaign until the election? Republicans will surely approve a reactionary nominee whether or not you all are present. The nominee would duck your questions if you staff the Judiciary Committee. And they will vote to approve quickly regardless of what Democrats do in Congress. So, stay home, campaign vigorously and take out some additional senators and congressional representatives.
4
Thank you, B. Justice Kennedy is not legally bound to retire now. In fact, I would gladly volunteer at his office if I could help make staying on the job easier.
If you guys ever want to win elections, stop 'leading with your values' a vacuous platitude that could easily also be a Republican slogan and start leading with ideas. Traditionally Democratic and progressive ideas that use to win you elections. I realize your donors may not be happy about that. but if you ever want the Democratic Party to thrives, you must sever your ties to Wall Street whose interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of workers. the constituents you are suppose to be representing and have lost in droves. And ditch the Better Deal of "Better jobs, higher wages and opportunity to succeed in the 21st century". Good grief no wonder you guys are wiped out at every level of government and have lost over a thousand seats.
4
Oh, we have ALL of the ideas. They just go in Republican ear and out the other. All repubs know how to do is destroy. From our land and water to human rights.
1
Why is trump so successful when he has the most ties to Wall Street of anyone who ever ran for President? He's removing protections for citizens specifically at the request of Wall Street. He's removing Dodd Frank, loosening the regulations put in place to prevent more bank fraud. Wait.....I forgot. Those are actual facts. I forgot. Your job is simply to parrot FOX "Dems love Wall Street". Sorry. I keep looking for intelligent comments, and keep getting nothing but insults from trump cult members. My bad.
1
Schumer and his over-the-hill gang are why we need term limits.
Oldsters have no stake in the future as their life has run out. All they do is obviously bump along the highway and block real progress.
They are not bold thinkers or doers. What they're best at is not doing anything.
6
The tragedy of the Democratic Party, of which the coming SCOTUS debacle is an example, is that, in order to win, it must convince voters in conservative states of their party's worth. Those are the very same states that will now punish Democratic senators not voting for Trump's SCOTUS choice.
The occasional lean towards conservatism on the left, and the concurrent absence of ideas on the center left (Trump hate is easier), have created a vacuum for Marxist demagogues to be taken seriously by large swaths of the party (e.g. Warner, Sanders, Cynthia Nixon). These people have very little chance of winning in a nationwide race, or many congressional races, consigning the party to yet further losses.
The basic issue that Democrats seem to fail to grasp, at least judging by their actions, is that this is fundamentally not an evil but a conservative country, and the only viable option for the party is not the lunacy of being way further on the left, but to move more toward the right: jobs, economy, sane immigration laws, rule of law, sane trade arrangements, strength abroad, jobs.
Abortion for most people is a secondary issue - most people sense not much will change with abortion in any case, even with Trump's new Justice. Yet Democrats are making abortion and illegal immigration the headline issues, the sole issues (when they don't talk about the mysterious Russia "collusion" or Stormy Daniels.)
Democrats deserve to lose as they've done nothing to deserve to win.
3
I respectfully disagree. It is time to have a real two party system with one party actually advocating for consumers and workers. A proportion of people voted for Trump because they believed his rhetoric that he was going to be there for the common man and woman. They took a gamble on him because clearly the moderate/centrist democrats have abandoned the worker and the consumer. It is time for Democrats to actually stand for something beyond platitudes. For example, Medicare for all. It's curious to me how often people regard such proposals as "radical" when part of the point is to reduce costs and improve outcomes in a system that is severely broken (e.g., people can't even be told how much a procedure will cost until after it is over; sometimes people will have to sue to get an accurate itemized bill). I offer this response because I get tired of the implication that going to "the left" is somehow irresponsible--as if somehow, people really like the "shell game" that is our current healthcare system. Health care is but one example of where moving to the "left" may actually be the responsible thing to do. If anything, referendum voting demonstrates that the country is actually more "liberal" and not conservative. People want fair wages and to be treated fairly at work; they want safe food and drinking water; they don't want to bail out "Wall Street" when as individuals they are expected to be responsible---hardly "radical" proposals.
1
If Obamacare is eliminated we should also bring back indentured servitude for those who run up a debt dealing with their previous medical issues. Work camps for the elderly, for example.
Whatever political lift the GOP gets by being tough on immigration will be negated by the deluge of anger and revenge extracted by a populace now told to eat cake instead of living disease free.
6
Schumer is toothless. We need new Democratic leadership.
5
Anyone with half a brain knows outlawing abortion will make women less safe (especially lower income women), grow the need for welfare, increase the likelihood of child abuse, and create an underground commerce in cheaply made abortion medications. All of which will cost us untold increases in government spending.
6
So, why didn't Democrats think about this in 2014 and 2016 and work hard to elect a Democratic majority in the Senate, instead of sitting around hoping that would happen? The right wing anti-freedom organizations mentioned in the column were laser-focused on the Supreme Court and made sure they installed a Senate that would do their bidding. Candidates need to have a winning message and get their voters out to vote for them.
4
Which is why you need to resign.
5
We once lived in a country where The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. would risk his life to fight for a cause he believed in. We now live in a country where one half of the Senate is content to endorse the actions of a deeply unpopular president rather than risk their government jobs, and the other half seems powerless to fight for their cause.
9
Democrats must filibuster Trump's nominee to block him.
While the filibuster is underway, clarify what Democrats stand for in simple sentences that can be repeated in 5 seconds:
1. "Health insurance and college/trade school for all, paid for by tax hikes on the wealthy."
There's $300 billion/year in just tax breaks for the top 1%, before we even get to higher tax rates and taxes on stock buybacks. Then of course we have $600 billion in defense spending.
2. Ethics/Drain the swamp. "We stand for term limits, campaign finance reform (public funding), and no donations from corporations. We require 8 years of tax returns from our candidates."
3
The Democrats don’t have the ability to filibuster Trump’s nominee due to Harry Reid changing the confirmation rules a few years ago.
5
Actually, Sen. Reid changed the process for cabinet officials and non-Supreme Court judicial appointments. Sen McConnell took the last step to remove the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees to get Gorsuch on the court.
@JT: You are correct; I didn't get that.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jun/28/supreme-court-replacement-de...
Chuck "Fake Tears, Head Clown" Schumer, aka "A Better Way" Schumer needs to immediately be thrown in jail for misrepresenting the People. He does not have what it takes.
The Resistance needs to clean house by clearing out the deadwood - that's job one.
Sacrifice this entitled clown and you renew the Democratic party. Keep him on and you sacrifice the country.
What's to think about? Just get rid of him. Start all new and good things will magically start to happen.
2
Then I guess you shouldn't have bungled the 2016 election.
3
The debate really needs to be reframed. In the US before ROE abortion may have been illegal but there were no penalties for having an abortion except for one … a financial penalty. The wealthy could have a child aborted safely but it could require travel and medical expenses. The poor were in trouble. There were few good options.
The current law places the poor and the wealthy on the same playing field. Except, of course, that the poor have to take whatever medical option is at hand while the wealthy can pursue medical excellence.
I think that the whole issue could be solved, practically, if the groups agitating for political issues would pool their funds and offer to support abortions for women who cannot pay for them. That might include travel expenses to a state where abortion is legal or even to a country where it is.
There probably is a women's right in there to be defended but, on a practical basis, the problem is financial and not legal.
1
What if Republicans agreed to fund Democrat abortions? I think it's a winning hand. Would you promise to stop burning our cities and attacking our citizens?
"chomping at the bit" - Really? I don't much expect young staffers to know the correct metaphor but Mr. 1600 SAT Senator? Did he even glance at this before it was submitted?
2
The left hates the idea of leaving it up to the citizens unless of course it's the presidential vote??? Odd isn't it, they trust their fellow citizens when they win a vote for President but don't trust those same people with abortion and other liberal hot topics! They simply want to control all things because if you disagree with them you're a nazi!
5
Poor Chuck is living in a time long past. He sounds too much like Neville Chamberlain, thinking the system will miraculously start working. Have Trump and the sycophant Republicans not yet convinced you that they do not give a flying fig about democracy? That the system is broken for the sole reason that it relied on morality and trust, with no protections if those two perceived stalwarts were eroded and thrown to the wind.
If a system contains a flaw, there is no system. Why Congress has not yet marched en masse to the White House is beyond me. That would get the peoples' attention, and might regain you some respect.
Civility be damned. Our enemies are emboldened and our allies are gobsmacked. We are heading for a global calamity and all you can do is discuss civility.
8
Thank you, Senator Schumer, for standing up and speaking out. So much is at stake. Much too much. Please, Senator, use every possible opportunity and venue, even if appropriate civil disobedience in the Senate. This president won a minority of the popular vote. He was elected in part because of gerrymandering. He does not have a mandate to foist a tyrannical reactionary extremist Supreme Court on the nation.
Over 100 million with pre-existing conditions including especially older Americans will lose access to health insurance and health care. Health care prices will explode. The civil rights of women will be taken away, especially the right to a safe and legal abortion. The Republicans will try to take away Social Security and Medicare. The list goes on and on.
5
Sigh. Gerrymandering affects the House - it does not affect Senatorial or Presidential elections. Illegal immigrants who pollute the Census, do, however, impact House and Presidential elections.
I wonder how, Robert, the reduction in abortions would affect you, unless they are helping you avoid child support?
As Matt points out, gerrymandering does not influence the presidential election directly. It does however influence the House where we find the House Republicans. Nunes et al. have lied to protect the president; leaked top secret information to protect the president; obstructed justice to protect the president; and altogether abandoned their Constitutional oversight duties. As for Matt's last point, it is silly. The civil rights of any American should and will matter to any decent American.
Matt writes:
"Sigh. Gerrymandering affects the House - it does not affect Senatorial or Presidential elections. Illegal immigrants who pollute the Census, do, however, impact House and Presidential elections.
I wonder how, Robert, the reduction in abortions would affect you, unless they are helping you avoid child support?"
The 2012 Supreme Court National Federation Of Independent Business vs. Sebelius concerned specifically the constitutionality of the Individual Mandate. The Court found that it was constitutional as a tax. Now having repealed the Individual Mandate rendering the decision moot in turn must lead to repeal of the entirety of Obamacare which was out of scope in the first place, is quite a novel legal argument.
Overturning Roe v. Wade will increase the likelihood of Republican gains in November and Trump's re-election. Nothing else stands higher on his agenda, so he will muster all his resources to make it happen. This move will endear him to many religious leaders and to voters who value this achievement above all others. In their moral and religious value system, nothing else comes close to being more important.
1
You are 100% right. The evangelicals hold their nose to President Trump's boorish rhetoric and porn star dalliances because he is working to keep his promise to put a Pro-Life justice on the Supreme Court.
If Trump is successful, and all indications are that he will be, he truly could stand in the middle of Fifth Ave and shoot someone and not lose their support.
1
I don't see you fathering any children, so what difference does it make? Unless you are a member of the baby parts machine.
Interesting to see voter turn out in the next two elections. There is always something out there that discourages people from voting.
1.) Only one Justice currently on the Court has said they would overturn Roe (Thomas).
2.) If Roe were overturned, it doesn't make abortion illegal. It moves abortion lawmaking from judges to lawmakers so that "we the people" decide the law on abortion the same way we decide the law on the vast majority of subjects, including pot, drinking age, taxes, budgets, social programs, etc.
3.) If we do not get a judge who is conservative, the left wing may take away our free speech and religious liberty rights. We can't allow them to turn back the clock and turn some folks into second-class citizens under the guise of compassion and forward-thinking.
4
Womens Rights are Human Rights.
Human Rights are Reproductive Rights.
Reproductive Rights are Womens Rights.
#NeverAgain
#HumanRights
#VoteBlue
November 6, 2018
6
Retirement of One Judge Causes Liberal Meltdown
Jeffrey Toobin was on CNN (crying), “No! Oh, no! (sobs) Roe v. Wade is doomed. (wailing) Oh, my God, babies are gonna live! Oh, no!” What can cause this? Well, that’s what happens. If a baby’s not aborted, it lives. I’m sorry if this is offensive. Take it up with God, not me. I’ve got nothing to do with it.But if a baby’s not aborted, it lives, and here’s Jeffrey Toobin (wailing) “Nooooo! Roe v. Wade is doomed!”
Look at the absolute meltdown that has taken place over a single individual saying he’s leaving.
Liberals must be defeated not convinced
3
This is such silly grandstanding. No rights hang in the balance with constitutional justices. The only time rights hang in the balance are when activist justices who see the constitution as a hindrance are nominated, such as Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Why is a sitting Senator attacking our basic constitutional framework? Sotomayor and Kagan were both nominated under Obama, both are far left justices, and yet, they received many GOP votes. Why? Because Republicans respect the Constitution. Why don't Democrats? I haven't seen Democrats this worried since we took away their slaves.
9
Stop it. You’re far too logical.
4
Unlike many fellow liberals, I feel that we brought this moment on ourselves by not realizing that the blowback of the Solid South (All Democrats then ) to the Civil Rights and Voting rights Acts would result in the Slaves States of Confederacy joining with the Republicans as 'Evangelicals' who then proceeded on a Southerner's cultural jihad against the rest of us.
They took over school boards and statehouses, arguing against higher taxes and for repeal of Roe v Wade as code phrase/dog whistles for bringing back Segregation.
Wake up, Liberal Democrats. The Lost Cause of the Civil War has been brought BACK to your doorstep courtesy of the Evangelicals.
6
Historical note:
Prior to the Civil War,
The Republicans were anti-slavery and the Democrats were pro-slavery.
Remember, Lincoln was a Republican...
1
And as you well know, the parties flipped-flopped 180 degrees over civil rights legislation. Those who were democrats but resented the idea of civil rights became today's rethuglicans, and republicans of the pre-civil rights era who backed civil rights legislation became today's democratic party. So if Lincoln were alive today, he'd be a democrat.
Chuck Schumer -- Then do it. Form a coalition with the progressive left instead of snipping at them or scolding them and fight this radical right minority whose antediluvian ideas would not merely set us back, but change us into another country that most of us will find intolerable. Fight back. We know bipartisan deals would be very very nice -- isn't it pretty to think that anybody in the Trump Party would go along with that. We all know McConnell is absolutely ruthless in stealing power for his group -- he cheats, lies, and does not care if anybody knows it. You guys need to stop the quarreling and forge a solid phalanx of Democrats of whatever stripe and don't back down. Do you think for one minute that anybody in Trump's Party read this op-ed. Do you think they care.
4
Senator, as you urge constituents across the nation to voice their opinions to their Senators, it is always reassuring to know that a Senator is listening.
Visibility and availability at home is key to the idea of representative government. Witness the demise of Representative Crowley.
I marched across the Brooklyn Bridge Saturday and rallied a stone’s throw from your home in Park Slope only to hear your niece, a comedian, speak.
I received an email this morning notifying me of a local town hall that you finally conceded to. Apparently, you haven’t been available. It’s time to start thinking outside your comfort zone. Those millennials (of which I’m not) have the right idea—time to shake things up!
Practice what you preach. Let he without sin cast the first stone—tell Harry Reid to drop the rock.
McConnell told him then he’d regret his move. Now, it’s time to beat them at their own game. Procedure. Procedure. Procedure. Loopholes. Loopholes. Loopholes.
Come on—you’re from Brooklyn! How long are you going to keep playing their shell game? Do you really think they care about their constituents? Republican town Halls and Trump rallies are but a distraction from the money streaming in as a result of Citizens United to support re-elections and to get one more Supreme Court justice—you’re right, it’s another slight of hand—we’ll eventually be living out episodes of a “Handmaid’s Tale”.
3
Senator Schumer, we are in this fix because your party chose to back an unpopular, establishment candidate instead of Bernie Sanders. The party is now making new rules that would prevent Sanders and other Independents from getting the nomination. Now you put the onus on the voters to fix your mess. How do you sleep at night?
4
Let's stick with the facts. Hillary Clinton, whom you label an "unpopular establishment candidate," won the popular vote by three million votes! Were it not for Russian meddling, Trump collusion, Republican gerrymandering, Comey's antics ten days out from Election Day, and the nonrepresentative Electoral College, which should have been tossed in the dustbin of history aeons ago, we would not be in this fix.
2
The Democrats lack ideas, initiative, drive. It is time for a change. Boxer knew when to go - we now have Harris, who is a fighter and who truly represents. Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein - the entire old guard needs to go, including Gilibrand.
I will also offer up the criticism that the "civility" of the Democrats when faced with Republican maneuvers - is weak leadership, and stems from Obama himself. Sorry People, I love Obama too, but this part is true.
Why was there not a greater fight for Garland? Why wasn't he a recess appointment? I would much rather Schumer had fought for that than spend his time whining in a New York Times op-ed piece - after the fact.
It seems to me that most Americans want to just live their lives, and have little or no interest in politics.
At the same time, Trump is continually testing the water to see just how much he can get away with, and is finding out that there is almost no limit.
This is why there is a good possibility that America will continue it’s downward slide away from the dream of our founding fathers, and into an authoritarian state.
The pathological motivation of greedy Oligarchs far outweighs any motivation on the part of the majority of “We the People”.
Please prove me wrong.
4
“I don’t think I’ll have any catastrophic appointment like Justice Roberts,”
Yeah, right. Any Trump nominee will be a lot worse than Roberts.
At keast Roberst appears to be concerned about how history will judge the Roberts Supreme Court. He is certainly a conservatove, but he does not seem to be a radical extreme right conservative.
The Senator never mentions the 3-year old SCOTUS decision regarding gay marriage (nor Voting Rights!) That’s because the majority of Americans have no cause to think about it. The majority of married Americans are able to put their spouses on their health insurance; name that spouse as beneficiary for any number of programs, including Social Security; they can freely visit each other in the hospital & never once be told to “get out”; the majority of married Americans live lives never once thinking they might lose their jobs or be refused service in a restaurant. But for myself & millions of other gay couples, that is not our reality even WITH gay marriage. Many of us joke we need to carry our marriage licenses with us, so we can prove we are entitled to be together.
My spouse & I have been together 27 years, & we married soon after SCOTUS told us we could. Most of those we know are similarly in long-term, committed relationships. Our lives will change drastically, in traumatic ways, if the new court sends gay marriage back to the states. Most states will rescind marriage. Without marriage, my disabled spouse will not be able to get health insurance (ACA will go down too), will not be able to have my Social Security when I die (the amount of her SS will be paltry due to her times out of the workforce to recover from her substantial injuries), & so on.
Women’s rights are critical, & I want to continue fighting for them. But let’s not forget LGBTQs rights as well.
1
Absolutely correct- now what are senate democrats going to do to fight this tooth and nail? The three swing votes in the democrats who supported the republicans last time should be given a choice- stand firm and be a democrat or get out. All other democrats, be disciplined , grow a spine and fight.
Time for new, younger leaders in the Dem party. With new ideas and a backbone to fight. Leaders who are proactive and not reactive.
4
Maybe the biggest decision a new Trump-appointed justice would have to weigh in on would be on whether or not a president can pardon himself and his family for treasonous acts involving Russian collusion in our election. Or perhaps a vote on whether or not the public will ever know? Or whether we'll have fair elections in the future? Or a Bill of Rights? A Constitution? The president must be wondering at this point if once he nominates the desired conservative, the tables will turn and he'll lose the support of McConnell and all the boys who have been putting party over country. He might be clever enough to have figured that out and hesitate.
1
Last gasp of the liberals: Mueller will save us!
Let's see how that all works out...
1
Thank you Senator Schumer. This is your legacy too. This debate is about a woman’s right to procreate when she chooses to depending on the stability of her relationship with the father, her economic situation, her other goals and life circumstances. Government would never presume to restrict a man’s pursuit of life, liberty and happiness in this manner. This is the ultimate #MeToo issue. Not all but many people who oppose abortion do so because they think sex out of wedlock is a sin, or they are patriarchs that need to control women’s sexual freedom. What better way then to make women carry unwanted babies. Look around you, probably any woman over 50 has a high statistical probability of having had an abortion or her sisters or mother or grandmother did. In other words, we are your grandmothers, your mothers or your daughters. We are good people. We are your doctors, lawyers, teachers, CEOs, farmers, and bankers and other productive citizens who you entrust with a multitude of decisions. Why not this decision that has an extreme personal impact to the mother? Women who have had abortions are smart, compassionate, law abiding, and when they choose to lovingly raise children who are productive citizens. Stop demonizing women who chose to have abortions.
Senator Schumer (D-Wall Street) would like us to think that he represents the interests and needs of working American men and women. Sadly, he does not----nor do most of the other dinosaurs who serve as "leaders" of the Democratic Party----not to mention the criminal leaders of the GOP. Trump won the Presidency because a large number of Americans realized that these parties no longer care about us, and serious change is needed. We elected a sociopath rather than the same-old-same-old, which demonstrates just how serious the problem is. Time for a party that actually pushes for the needs and concerns of working Americans, including single payer health care for all, fair taxation, the end of corporations as people, investment in the infrastructure, and the end of Democratic identity politics.
4
This is a prime example of hypocrisy in American politics:
Abortion = A woman's decision to engage in triage with regards to her own body and fetus.
Preexisting condition healthcare policy = corporation's decision to engage in triage with regards to its customers.
There's a compromise available. Just recognize both matters for their underlying theory (triage) and accept (begrudgingly, from both sides) that the human condition involves making difficult decisions regarding health and death.
But no.
We do not believe in difficult compromises in the zero sum game of politics. We need it all.
In particular, since the 1980s, the conservative base has frothed at the mouth over Roe to the point where that one case matters more than issues paramount to our world and our democracy, such as the protection of the environment and voting rights.
With a 6-3 court, the bedrock of our society will be shaken and our world imperiled even more, all because people on both sides couldn't step back and have a reasonable discussion on the utilitarian existence we call "life."
Both sides have traded the well-being and stability of our future generations over fights that mean, at best, more years for those of us in the present.
So eat up, America. Drink away. For tomorrow we die.
1
Oh brother. Hyperbole?
How about the court actually gives the power of lawmaking back to the legislative, where it was intended, and go back to interpretation? That’s Federalism. Adams, Madison, Hamilton, et, al, would approve.
If you don’t like the laws, don’t blame the SCOTUS.
1
@Scott
That's such a Scalia thing to say... right as he was overturning the legislatively created gun control laws in Heller.
SCOTUS is supposed to interpret laws pursuant to the Constitution and its Amendments (yes, including the 2nd, and yes, including the 14th; it swings both ways). That means in practice SCOTUS has a very large role in what laws are made and kept. You can't separate final interpretation from creation. The former dictates and controls the latter, as was the founders' intent.
But none of that is really my point. My frustration is that the next 50-100 years of SCOTUS jurisprudence will be decided based primarily on a candidate's views on whether a woman has a right over her body, including a fetus. Full stop. THAT, right there, is the determining factor for who will be interpreting the laws of our nation until their death or retirement.
That is ridiculous.
So no, it's not hyperbole. There will be ripple effects from this appointment on long-term, society-wide matters totally unrelated to abortion rights, but it all leads back to Roe playing the deciding issue in the appointment.
All because conservatives couldn't agree to let the private decisions of individual women be a private matter. All because liberals couldn't offer something up in return to have everyone move on.
The past and the present apparently matter more to everyone than our cumulative future. C'est la vie.
I think the new generation of Republicans will realize that letting, and ENCOURAGING, radicalized American females to abort their children is best for America - and the world. Democrat women are good for casual sex - but not for marriage. Every American guy knows that. So, we have an agreement - let Democrat women abort, abort, abort.
Dear Sen Schumer, this is all relevant but none of it might matter, UNLESS you/the Democrats find a way to replace the goons in power, in Congress and in the White House. You're fighting the wrong battle. Forget the spin. and baiting that this reprehensible president tries every day. Forget the news cycle. It's a distraction to obfuscate this administration and the GoP's evil intentions. Getting involved in any of these or reacting to the bait isn't helping the nation. What you need to do is get back to basics. Figure out how to get your message to every voter in the country. Go out there and really get engaged in communicating with citizens. You are a government of the people - talk to them! Talk with the steel workers who thought trump was good for them, or with those Harley-Davidson workers who thought the GoP and trump wanted to do anything for them. We have a crisis in the sense that the system has changed. It is abundantly clear that government no longer functions for its citizens but for the enrichment of a select few. The system is engineered to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. If you're serious about governing for the people, be sincere about it. Break this cycle of government moving away from it's original intent and bring it back to where it is supposed to be - a system created by the people, for the people. We are already getting a glimpse of the slide into oligarchy - you have to work hard to stop it, but you are also in danger of becoming part of it.
3
Trump is selecting his SCOTUS nominee from a list of 25 names that was outsourced to, and created by the Heritage Foundation and The Federalist Society, which uses ‘strict constructionism’ as a litmus test for rating its judicial nominees. ‘Strict constructionism’ (‘originalism’ or ‘textualism’) expressly denies the existence of any Constitutional ‘right to privacy’ because those words are not found in the Constitutional text itself. Roe v. Wade (410 US 113, 1973), like Griswold v. Connecticut (381 US 479, 1965), rests upon the legal foundation of an (unenumerated) ‘implicit right to privacy’ found within the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Any judicial nominee who embraces such an ‘implicit right to privacy’ fails the Society’s most basic litmus test, is rated ‘Unqualified,’ and does not make their Top 25 list.
The opposition to a Trump SCOTUS appointment before the November midterms needs to zero-in on the outsourced Top 25 list, not the quality of the individual named. The calculus of Senators Manchin, Donnelly and Heitkamp is different from the Gorsuch appointment. Neil Gorsuch was a one-for-one conservative replacement for Antonin Scalia, and the fundamental direction of the Court remained the same with Kennedy as the fulcrum. This is different, and those three know it. Sen. McConnell will only get one bite at the apple before the November elections, which could completely change the balance of power.
1
After Nixon lost a close race to Kennedy in 1960, the GOP’s marketing machine smartened up. The 1964 Goldwater campaign tested the waters but Johnson hit back equally hard with the infamous “Daisy Girl” ad. Subsequently, Nixon came back in 1968 with his “southern strategy.” Ever since Roger Ailes, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, et al. have successfully deployed a mix of overt and dog whistle-messaging strategies to win GOP campaigns. Trump took the overt messaging to new lows with his politically incorrect and offensive style – but it worked like all previous GOP efforts to put party before country and further polarize the nation!
To the matter at hand, in the Trump era, if Democrats continue to follow Michelle Obama’s “when they go low, we go high” philosophy, they will find themselves blown away like a puff of smoke. It’s time to bring back their Bork tactics of the 1980s with a vengeance. For millions of women, it’s only control of their own bodies at stake and for millions of more Americans it’s their healthcare that is in jeopardy. Being politically correct in the Trump era is political suicide and the stakes are way too high for Democrats to not duke it out in the gutters, where our president seems to thrive. If Democrats are going to go down, they might as well go down fighting – they might lose the battle (for the Supreme Court nominee), but they most certainly will win the war (the midterm elections) by doing so!
When McConnell said that he thought that the next President
should pick the next Supreme Court justice I wondered why
the Dems just stood aside let that happen. There should have been a mighty uproar about that in the press and everywhere else.I understand that there was not much Obama could do legally about that, but he and the Dems could have made a God awful fuss about it and really let it be known to the American people what was going on.Did they think that Hillary was going to win and that would solve the problem with no extra effort on the part of the Dems? Well, the chickens have come home to roost, folks.
And now we have Shumer saying that it is up to the voters to do a job that the party does not relish doing. Get ready for eight solid years of Trump, if the Dems continue to sit on their
hands and do nothing
2
Elected dems need to go on the offensive. Trump is a president by statistical fluke and the antiquated EC, which the overturn of needs to be a dem goal. Trump is president because of Russian meddling, in which trump is under investigation for abetting. Trump has a too-cozy family business relationship with justice Kennedy and his son, which resulted in some questionable recent Kennedy votes on game changing decisions this summer. Kennedy 's retirement timing is no coincidence-- it was ordered, and a deal cut. trump will extract pardon promises from any justice he appoints. For these reasons, trump must not be allowed this opportunity till after his eyes a d maybe never. Chuck: take off the gloves NOW. Watch tapes of the house evisceration attempts of rosenstein and ms. Clinton and submit Kennedy and his son to same. Speak to Americans in war like terms, because this is what we are in. War.
Dear Senator Schumer, the elections have consequences. I am a die-hard center left Democrat. When the Republicans lost in election, they did "AUTOPSY" or root cause analysis for their loss. You are the top leader of the Democratic Party and what you did to prevent loosing election . The Democratic Party forgot how to win elections. The bitter internal fight among the different fractions of the party will make us "perpetual looser". Learn from Mitch. Stop bleeding in the party. Most of the voters are at the center. Trump won because we the purists could not vote for Hillary. You have to change the label " the liberals are lazy". Winning in elections is the only goal.
1
Death by one thousand cuts takes 1,000 cuts.
Just look at the way the Supreme Court is trying to get rid of the death penalty. How many more cuts are necessary to kill death penalty, 300 ?
1
Had Schumer and his fellow centrist/corporatist Dems not abandoned the working class back in the 90s, we wouldn't be in this mess today.
The Dem leadership has failed so badly, losing power at the state level and all three branches of the federal government, they should be falling on their swords.
5
Senator Schumer: talk is cheap. We are still waiting for you to do something. You can start by doing everything in your power to deny the Senate a quorum on every single roll call vote, no matter what its purpose. You must bring all business to a standstill.
2
Memo to Chuck and Nancy: everything ends, and it's long past time for both of you to exit gracefully. I'm sure it will be difficult to give up your lovely offices but do it for those of us who are dying for leadership. Trump takes all the oxygen out of the air, and you and other corporate Democrats are allowing it to happen. Get out of your comfort zone and fight the way Mitch does. Can't be that hard, can it? Not if you really want to.
3
Senator Schumer, please step up and fight hard and act like the smart, tenacious person I voted for. You have been too silent and not effective in your position as Senate minority leader. Use your skill and experience to do what needs to be done. An op-ed piece is nice, but at this point, you're preaching to the converted. Fight fire with fire, or you will be voted out!
In reading the comments posted for this Op-Ed I am drawn to the ones who are asking Sen. Schumer why Donald Trump has been allowed to hijack media center stage. Sure, I know he holds the title of President and that the media is obligated to cover his Tweets and off-the-cuff comments as front page above-the-fold.
But where is the passionate voice of the Democratic Party to counter his lies and flagrant deceipt? It has to be more than Sen. Schumer appearing on C-Span talking to an empty Senate Chamber and reading from a prepared text lamenting where Trump's policies are taking the country. Ho-Hum.
The Democratic Party needs a street fighter now - someone in the mold of Anthony Weiner (absent the other issues of course). To see Weiner take on the Republicans when he was a New York Congressman was a lesson for all Dems. He was unapologetic in his Democratic beliefs and he was ferocious in his attacks on the hypocrisy of the Republican Party.
As a life-long Democrat I long to pull behind a leader from the party who can do what he did: speak with passion and total conviction.
1
So if our rights really hang in the balance, Mr. Schumer, stop being so polite in asking Mitch McConnell to abide by the rule he made when he stole the last vacant seat on the Supreme Court. Mitch doesn't play fair and never will. When you take on a street fighter you have to fight dirtier than him to win. If you don't, you and Pelosi better step aside and let younger, more fiery leaders carry the fight to the Republicans. And stop slavishly supporting every pro-Israel anti-Palestinian measure that comes up in Congress. Don't you know that the suspension of U.S. aid to U.N. refugee agencies in Gaza has added so much suffering to the Palestinians there that Israeli generals now fear another war?
2
The U.S. voters said they wanted Republicans in the House and Senate to balance an unbalanced Obama - beginning when Mass. sent a Republican to replace the dead Kennedy during the ObamaInsuranceScheme fiasco.
That Republican Senate declined to confirm Obama's pick for the Supreme Court - as was its right. Obama had to obtain the consent of the Senate - and he failed. The failure of Obama was his and his masters who appointed him - not of the Republican Senate.
1
People don't seem to get it. Trump has us trumped. GOP has hijacked the Supreme Court by blocking Obama's pick and now buying Kennedy's early dismissal (the easiest one to payoff). He has allowed Russia two years to perfect their infiltration into our voting systems and to increase propaganda. He has befriended all strong dictators in the world and alienated our allies. He has discredited our news outlets, taken control of our internet, discredited our intelligence community and destroyed all agreements made in the last fifty years to protect Americans in this new and changing world. If we don't stop trump soon, there will be no way to stop him. Everyday he gets richer and more powerful.
2
This crisis is largely because your party didn't make a big enough stink about Merrick Garland, or push Obama to make a recess appointment. You guys could have played hardball with the GOP, but they're tougher than Democrats will ever be. You could have at least tried to make the important issues a straight line vote, but you couldn't even do that.
If you're really not going to fight, quit.
We need fighters.
3
pssssst they changed the rules for lower judges, That wasn't cheating, stealing?
2
I am an independent but would give it to Republicans and Trump, that they are bold, masters in playing politics, extremely good at propaganda warfare with huge resources and media outlets, and stick to their goals no matter how ugly or unethical the means. On the contrary, the democrats are cowardly, led by old style and aged leaders who should have been replaced long ago, , too civil and get mired in lot of so called principles and procedures to achieve their very underwhelmed goals.
During 2016 when Obama nominated a Supreme court nominee, there was one sentence that was spoken by McConnell, Republicans and their propaganda outlets -" LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE" after the elections. So if I was a democratic strategist, I will advise them to organize million people march when the congress is in session and surround the Capitol Hill with just one slogan " LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE . Let no democrat senator meet the nominee and participate in the charade of hearings when they already know the results because they are in minority. But don't expect any " heroic" theatricals from Democrats. That is why I pretty much see Republicans outsmarting them even in the next midterm.
1
Chuck Schumer's comments show the problem with our federal judiciary. They have become American aristocracy. They have too much power, with no check on it. The only way voters can affect who will be on the federal bench is by who they chose for president or senator. That's silly.
Think of it. Our federal judges are appointed for life, wear robes, sit on raised thrones, require all to rise when they enter or leave, require supplicants to address them as "Your Honor", and their permission must be obtained (often with an imperious wave of the hand) to approach their person.
Worst of all, though unelected the federal judges have power over the elected president and congress to strike down anything they do. Federal judges are out of control, making law as they see fit. Roe v. Wade is just the most prominent example. Regardless of the merits of the case, the judiciary had no right to make that decision.
Other countries do much better than we do. They don't have lawyers and judges taking over the country and its politics. They don't have an unelected elite of lawyers who have unbridled power over the people. They don't have a politicized justice system.
In our democratic United States, how did this ever come about? Who gave federal judges this power?
No one. They took it. It's time we took it back. That's what you should be concerned about, Chuck Schumer.
5
John,
You have put your finger on the next
Constitutional Crisis - who can regulate
the Judges ?
This article is testament to the absolute fecklessness of Schumer and the Democrats to pass legislation through the normal process and their over reliance on judicial activists
3
I would probably not agree with you on any other subject but you are 100% right on this one, we need to suppress voter turnout and gerrmander also.
1
Pretty good editorial, but this sentence is wildly misleading:
"Just like Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Roberts and Samuel Alito before him, the next nominee will obfuscate and hide behind the shopworn judicial dodge, 'I will follow settled law.' ”
As Sen. Schumer well knows, Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan did the same thing.
2
Senator Schumer, are you serious? Politicians like you make us want new blood in the Democratic Party. I’m not calling anyone because that’s the old fashion way and it doesn’t work. I can hardly wait for the new comers to get elected and see you out because you and other Democrats don’t have the courage to fight against President Trump and his comrades. You kept quiet when he assumed full control of the Republican Congress; did nothing knowing that Trump’s ego doesn’t allow him to shoulder responsibility. In fact when he makes the wrong decisions, he often passes the buck onto the Democrats and you take it. Shame on you!
We, the people in support of the Democratic Party got what we deserved. It’s true that our political detachment is due to Congress inaction but lessons need to be learned. What is at stake? A woman’s right to choose; loosing coverage for pre-existing conditions; the constant feeling of being watched.
In order to move forward, the Democratic Party must be joined by new progressive political candidates ready to fight against Trump and the Republicans; explain to their constituents the importance of voting during the midterm elections. We must clearly understand that voting in November will give us the power to restore our economic way of life and to oust corrupted politicians on both sides of the isle.
Senator Schumer, thanks for reiterating what is by now obvious.
Your expressions of probabilistic outcomes seem to ignore the shocking reality of what is happening at this very moment, namely that Trump, with the enthusiastic support of Mitch McConnell and the entire Republican caucus, is stacking the Court with nominees that ensure that his decisions will never be opposed.
The actual law is far less important to Trump than his power to dictate the law. But he is a pathological liar and so a deceitful and unreliable negotiating partner: he changes easily and unpredictably. It would surprise no one if he ultimately supports Roe v Wade. He just wants to be the Supreme President, more powerful than even the Supreme Court.
In the face of Trump's aggressive and advancing moves to expand his control of all three branches of government, your advice to voters is passive and feeble. Congressional Republicans could not care less about phone calls exhorting them to vote against Trump's orders.
This is the time for hardcore, nasty schemes, the kind that Mitch McConnell is good at. You know what I'm talking about.
Senator, if YOU "do not want a Supreme Court Justice who will overturn Roe v. Wade and undo the Affordable Care Act", then you've got to whip your Democrat colleagues into stonewalling the nominee until after the midterm elections.
Otherwise, we will soon be totally at the whim of Strongman Trump.
3
There’s not much left here.
The day Citizens United became the law of the land, our country was sold to the highest bidder. The overturn of Roe vs Wade will be just more misery inflicted on the poor. I have no solution. I’ll send my $27 here and there, but really my pitchfork is sharpened and I’m ready for a violent upheaval!
1
Welcome to the party Chuck! Glad you could make it. Now get out on the floor and dance a bit. If Democratic values are to be preserved, we need some high stepping from you and others in the Congress. We Dems are watching.
1
Schumer, Pelosi and Durbin are not part of the solution.
Along with Hillary Clinton they are the gift that keeps on giving to Trump and the like.
1
The Republicans have Mitch McConnell a fierce, vicious political warrior and the Democrats have Chuck Schumer, a non-entity. And let’s not forget Nancy Pelosi, who looks like an alien from another galaxy to most of the country. Since Nancy Pelosi took over a leadership role, Democrats have lost over a 1000 seats at the state and federal level. She wrote a terrible healthcare law, that was so flawed it was able to be dismantled in under a decade. And since Mr. Schumer took over, the Democrats have all but disappeared. I honestly don’t know who disgusts me more, Mr. Trump or the failed leadership of the Democratic Party.
2
Republican senators: this is when we see if you have any guts, honor, and humanity.
YOU KNOW what the people want. We want health care; we want the freedom to choose what to do with our bodies; we want government free from the corruption of big money.
How you behave now, when it matters more than ever, is how you will be judged by your constituents and by history. And it is how you will, or won't, be able to sleep.
Let someone like Chris Murphy craft the message about the SC nomination. Schumer whines too much and doesn't shape his words to resonate to voters. Republicans have a winning if not absurd message: Conservatives follow the Constitution. They have half the country believing this fodder. Murphy expounded on the key issue that might resonate: Conservative jurists tend to protect the rich, big business, and donor interests. They're anti union, anti consumer, anti science and have so far propped up voter suppression by deferring to racist state legislatures. It's all in the message.
Dems should stop at NOTHING to prevent a nominee from going to the floor before the mid-terms.
1
"We should all want a more representative process for choosing the next Supreme Court justice" -- that's right, Sen. Schumer, and that's why I voted for you. So your job is not to tell me what I should want, I already told you, and it seems that we agree. Did you write this to encourage other senators to vote against Trump's nominee? Seems like you might have other ways to speak with them than through the Times... or are things this bad? I cringe when I recall the Merritt Garland travesty --- what did you do? and what are you doing now? In simple, direct terms.
Maybe Sen. Schumer should have convinced his predecessor, Sen. Reid, not to institute "the nuclear option." Once that was done by the Democrats, did they really think that the Republicans --- when given the chance --- would not use it as well?
3
As a lifelong liberal, native New Yorker, who first worked for JFK, I call on, no, make that, demand, that as my representatives in the Senate, Senator Schumer and your junior colleague, Kirsten Gillibrand, do whatever it takes to halt Herr Trump's attempt to destroy this country.
Trump has committed a litany of high crimes and misdemeanors against the Constitution and the nation. His day of judgement is coming. But we cannot wait for Bob Mueller to act. And we cannot count on one Republican to do the right thing.
I understand due process, regular order, the rule of law. And understand addressing my grievances. I need not also remind you and Senator Gillibrand my wife and I have been loyal and extremely generous in supporting your campaigns. In my five decades as a member of the Democratic (it is Democratic, NOT Democrat) Party I do like pressuring my representatives. But drastic times call for drastic measures.
With Trump, the buck stops here. Trump is an insult to this Republic for which it stands, and has stood for over two centuries. He is an affront to critical thought, debate, decorum, diplomacy. I've known this charlatan for decades. In all that time I have never witnessed him commit one altruistic charitable act of decency.
You know what I speak is the truth, Senator. I empathize the position you, Kirsten, my representative in the Lower House are in. But, I implore you, this is a time for a profile in courage. If not now, when?
DD
Manhattan
3
Our rights hang in the balance, you say. And your solution, as a national Party leader, is to.....call your representatives. Such leadership, statecraft, divining the exactly correct action needed. Rapier wit, incisive deductive skills, keen, analytical mind at work. Who knew.
It’s early in the day, but it’s 5 o’clock somewhere.
2
Excellent.
Elections have consequences. This is one of them. Win elections and you won't have this problem. Be the party in charge and you can control what happens. The Republicans have learned how to use the rules and practices in place to control what happens. The republicans live in the world the way it actually is, the democrats live in a world the way it should be. Stop whining, Learn the game, then play the game. Win elections.
2
Schumer is bent on obstruction, having said no one on Trump’s list of 25 would be acceptable. Meanwhile his party is trending ever leftward, toward socialism, open borders, free college, Medicare for all and soaking the rich. Look at New Jersey, which seems determined to drive out all those who are wealthy and contribute mightily to NJ’s tax coffers. Schumer, like the NY Times, thinks those who disagree with them are evil. Not much of a platform to run on. Party leadership looks eligible for the old folks’ home. Not much hope there. Gillibrand, Warren and Kamala Harris have limited appeal to moderates and independents. Who will represent the Dems in 2020? Dust Hillary off again? Fit ol’ Joe Biden with Depends and send him out on the stump?
2
Laws written by judges, in violation of their constitutional duty to apply the laws passed by the people and their representatives, as written and intended, hang in the balance. The left's ability to pass laws and dominate the people without winning elections hangs in the balance.
2
Schumer & the entire Democrat leadership blew it when they caved in to McConnell in 2016 when President Obama was in office.
Now he expects us to believe there is actually a single Republican who will vote against a Republican nominee to SCOTUS?
Please Chuck, Democrats outside of DC are smarter than that.
2
There is no action that now can bring reason into the situation; the dye has been cast. There will be a "Christian" Supreme Court that will overturn Roe v. Wade, and abortions will become illegal in much of the country. Most of the credit/blame goes to Mitch McConnell and his handling of Senate conformation votes; the rest goes to Trump and the Senate majority. All we can do is watch the predestined cards being played that will turn back the clock a hundred years. Indeed, a sad period ahead for America. Very SAD!
See: RevolutionOfReason.com
1
All through this piece I was waiting to get to the part about how Senate Democrats were going to do everything in their power to at least postpone this nomination until after the midterms.
Finally, in the last paragraph, Senator Schumer told us - to call our Senators! Really? Seriously? That's it?
Well, Senator Schumer, I'm in California, and both of my Senators are women and are already opposed to any of Trump's nominees. What am I supposed to do?
How about you lead Democratic Senators in a number of protests? How about you get a coffin, label it "Women's Reproductive Rights", and hold a funeral on the Capitol Steps? How about you do SOMETHING other than tell people to call their Senators?
Oh, and here's a thought - perhaps someone else should lead the Senate Democrats.
1
Roe v Wade is not going anywhere.
It is a gift that keeps on giving. It's a gold mine. It is a vote magnet. No bought conservative (republican) politician, no temple money changing evangelical preacher want their single most potent, reliable, money making, fleece the rubes cultural wedge issue to go away.
1
Dear Chuck, Did you not know that elections have consequences? What prevented your party from uniting in order to win the Electoral College? Where was the Democratic Congressional delegation's resistance during the Garland nomination fiasco? Your team played possum while the GOP's illegally blockaded a sitting president. Where are your protests today to stand up and oppose a President who sold out to our Russian enemies? How come you have not shut down all life appointed judgeships until we have resolve that question of corruption, and interference by Trump?
For US citizens of color, of non-Christian religions, women and LGBTQ we knew then we'd be at greater physical, economic and social risks in this country with a GOP dominated SCOTUS. We felt abandoned by our leaders. For us this is well beyond a cocktail hour chat - it is our life and our premature deaths we face. I wish I could feel your resolve and commitment to representing me. Sadly all I feel is your wish to protect the status quo and make the best for yourself.
1
Call my senator? If I call my senator it will be because the homeless army has taken over Los Angeles and we need help.
2
Chuck & Nancy try getting some 'messaging' advise on how to FIGHT for this Supreme Court BATTLE from Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. Yeah all our rights are hanging in the balance. But these rights pale by comparison if we allow McConnell and his Republicans to have their way here. Guess What? They FIGHT DIRTY. I'm willing to bet they've pre-determined their court pick won't hold Trump accountable. No matter what Mueller uncovers. If we let this court pick go down without an ALL out War, our Democracy, The Great American Experiment is over. And no I don't think I'm being hyperbolic.
Stop fearmongering! Our rights do not hang in the balance. Some SCOTUS decisions such as Dredd Scott are wrong and need another look. Why is it bad for some decisions to be returned to the states? Aren't those states bastions of democracy? The people can vote in the states rather than inventing rights from the court.
2
Jeff Sessions was forced to say he would recuse himself from any investigations into Russian interference in our elections before he was confirmed as AG (of the Confederacy). Any Trump justice nominee should agree to recuse himself from any decision regarding the President's conspiring with Russia before he (and it will probably be a pale, stale, male) is confirmed.
“Earth to Schumer: don’t just preach to the choir, start talking.”
Loudly. Forcefully. Start talking to individual congresspersons. Here’s the question, Chuck. Will the minority party continue to be the spineless party of the past?
The left is hungry for stronger rhetoric. How about, "this president is under investigation for possible treason. Any justice rammed through under his reign will be illegitimate. Any senator that votes to confirm a Trump justice will be abetting a tyrant."
The battle lines have been drawn. It's time for Democratic leadership to get behind them.
2
This op ed reminded me of a 2016 NY Times article --- “Here’s Why You Should Call, Not Email, Your Legislators”. It had a photo of Senator Schumer.
It says a phone ringing off the hook is more difficult for a lawmaker to ignore than a flooded inbox. Has a link to site with short scripts suggested for use when calling on various issues.
“Activists of all political stripes recommend calling legislators, not just emailing ….several lawmakers, along with those who work for them said a phone call from a constituent can hold more weight than an email, and far outweighs a Facebook post or a tweet.”
Says staff keeps records of calls on all issues. A large volume of calls on an issue could be effective and push the legislator to put out a statement on his or her position.
Or maybe reconsider their position?
That, plus marching in the streets.
The Democrats need to lay down on the tracks to stop or deeply disrupt Trump’s SCOTUS nomination – even if they don’t think they can win, even if they get run over. This is war.
They need to take action beyond an editorial piece in the Times. Barricade the Senate chamber doors, something that would demonstrate courage in the face of tyranny. Anything but stand by helpless saying: there is nothing we can do.
Running out of political options is no excuse. The Republicans crossed the line with the Garland nomination by fundamentally altering the way the SCOTUS approval process works. Now it is time for Democrats to cross the line and defend democracy.
This will be the ultimate test for the Democratic Party’s old guard. Put up or shut up. It very well could be their last battle. There are obviously many young progressive candidates standing in the wings who are willing to fight.
If Schumer’s tepid verbal alarm is the best the Democrats can do, we are doomed.
What I want to hear from Schumer is: I am willing to go to jail, to lose my job. I and the Senate Democrats will en masse seize the podium and refuse to leave in order to fight tyranny. It likely won’t work, but it would show some backbone. That I would respect.
But they won’t. Caution is the Democratic platform.
Here’s the thing Senator Schumer: the system has been hijacked. And the cherished Democratic “high road” has been closed to traffic.
5
The right at stake is the right to protect my family. The 2nd Amendment recognizes the right to defend your self and others and prohibits the government from infringing on that right. The SCOTUS justices must defend those that choose to defend their family and not allow those that choose not to defend themselves to impose restrictions on those that do.
1
It's not enough to write op ed columns, Senator. We need your actions to reflect the righteous indignation that your constituents feel. Let's start seeing some Dems take steps that demonstrate they are willing to put their necks on the line for this one.
3
Oh, come on, Senator. Get real. Our Republican senators aren't answering their phones. Your job is to obstruct a vote until the new Congress is seated. Make a backroom deal with a few Republican senators. Seriously threaten red state Democrats to toe the line. File a lawsuit about anything. Put glue in the locks of the Senate chamber. Hold a sick-out to prevent a quorum. Better yet, put on a show. Our esteemed president holds his red-meat rallies somewhere every week or two. Is it beneath you high-brow Democratic senators to do the same? Get out of DC. Dress down. Rent a stadium in every state capital and five or more of you get on the stage and talk some trash (an occasional profanity welcome). Pump your fist. Hug the flag. Hold up copies of the Constitution. Adopt a rally theme, like "Ain't Going Back!" or "Oh NO You Don't!" If you can't rev up a crowd, Senator, just sit on the stage and let somebody else do it. Like Maxine. Emotions rule the day and rightly so. This is a fight to preserve rights generations have worked long and sacrificed much to win -- voting rights, workers' rights, women's rights, consumer rights. It is a fight for the little guys in every aspect of our lives -- healthcare, employment, education, housing, retirement, criminal justice -- at a time when the big guys are getting everything they want and then some. Millions of us little guys want Democrats fighting on OUR side. WE want some of that red meat.
3
The "Tyrant in Place' is orchestrating a "coup de etat". To him shall be subject a wounded and confused Congress for whom he has contempt (Republicans and Democrats alike) and a Supreme Court whose members he will pick and whose judgements he will only accept and administer, if he sees fit to do so.
"As Batterer-in-Chief this Putin President disestablishes the tripartite system of governing by submitting all to his will.
Senator Schumer 's suggestion that Senators (like Corker,Flake and McCain?) band together and defend the Republic through a representative process for choosing the next SCOTUS member may buy time. However, without prompt action to remove Tyrant Trump, we will witness in this choosing the breakdown of the American Republic as we know it.
One of the few things that the Dems get on their soap box about. Not getting their way. They were just a hop skip and jump from socialism and the abyss with Mr. Clever Hope and Change - and now they have to contend with enforcement of the law, family values, capitalism, and the constitution. I recommend therapy!
3
Senator Schumer, the Democratic Party has become quite adept at shooting itself in both legs, doing things without thinking through the long term consequences, and as we see from this article, the practice is alive and well.
Let's offer a few examples:
1. The borking of Bork, creating among conservatives a sense of grievance that survives to this day.
2. The failure, perhaps not without trying but still a failure, to persuade Justice Ginsberg to retire while Obama was president.
2. The fielding of HRC as a presidential candidate.
3. The epic and unbelievable miscalculation that HRC would win in a landslide and the Trump could never become President, all the way to election day.
4. Senator Reid's elimination of the filibuster which opened the door to McConnell's elimination of the SCOTUS filibuster.
5. The floating of demonstrably corrupt and useless ideas by Democratic Party icons, such as that Trump should not be able to nominate because of 1) investigations 2) mid-term elections, reducing Democratic credibility on this issue to below zero.
6. Staking the future of the Democratic Party on one thing and one thing only: the hate of all things Trump.
7. Passively allowing the socialist far-left to slowly take over the Democratic Party, an ideology that has zero viability in the US.
8. Insisting on the continuation of party leadership that has presided over two failed elections in a row, with the third and perhaps fourth looming.
4
John,
A very accurate and honest examination of
the Democratitc Party failures.
One can wonder if the Elites are not more in charge
of the Democrats than the Republicans.
2
John, elites are clearly more in charge of the Democrats than of the Republicans. That much is clear from the lock step nature of Democrat votes. An example is Obamacare (ACA) voted in by Democrats with not one Republican vote. And somehow they thought that was a good idea. By contrast, Republicans can't even pass an immigration bill because of internal disagreements that are allowed to persist - if an "elite" were in charge, that would not happen.
The debates rage in the R party, I can't discern any in the D party.
The reaction against elites in the Republican Party was to elect Trump and to move toward Middle America, literally and figuratively. That has paid huge dividends, but it is still Republicanism.
Democrats are moving away from America, middle or otherwise, by playing the siren song of "democratic socialism", an ideology that even the homeless of America despise. The ideology is "everything free" with nary a thought for who will pay for it. Elitists like the good Senator are against this (hey, what would the Wall Street bankers, my contributors, say?), but they are being outmaneuvered by the far left, and when they make a hapless hash out of Nov 2018, as they will, they'll be gone. The elites of the Democratic Party, more or less firmly in charge, will sink their party, not by commission but by omission.
And so they go on and on, touting "abortion" and "fairness to illegal immigrants". The first is of limited utility, the second is a suicide mission.
HEY CHUCK! How about providing and supporting a platform in the party instead of standing for god knows what? I won't vote republican, but for crying' out load, what does the Democratic Party stand for? Shall we guess. Take a look at a statement from someone who recently won win Queens:
"I believe that in a modern, moral, and wealthy society, no person in America should be too poor to live," she said. "What that means to me is health care as a human right, it means that every child no matter where you are born should have access to a college or trade-school education if they so choose it. I think that no person should be homeless if we have public structures or public policy to allow for people to have homes and food and lead a dignified life in the United States." and actually, there's more! And guess what? ow about clarifying that it's for ALL Americans regardless of race-color - or creed. Let the middle class know what you stand for!
6
While Trump holds all the cards, Schumer and others in Democratic leadership need to ask themselves how we got here. I blame some of the most ineffectual leadership and loss of direction on you! What have you been doing the last 10 years since Obama assumed his presidency.
You squandered a golden opportunity and the world will pay a heavy price for years to come.
Thanks for nothing!!!!
3
Schumer seems to have no awareness whatsoever of the right-wing assault on voters -- gerrymandering and voter suppression -- that will get many times worse with the next SC appointment.
I hope you all enjoyed your last relatively free and fair Federal election (I'm sure russia did). It will likely be a long time before you get another.
1
Trump is nothing but a giant misery machine. He will take any action to substantially increase the misery of as many poor and middle class Americans as possible.
Already he has: Imposed taxes on the middle class in order to pay for massive tax cuts for himself. Imposed tariffs on our ex-allies which will cause massive unemployment. Turned the EPA into a promoter of pollution. Accelerated climate change and the destruction that comes with it.
Perhaps Trump can get his and McConnell's new personal court to: Overturn Roe vs Wade. Make unions illegal. Dissolve medicare, medicaid, unemployment insurance, SNAP, and every other social welfare program. Ban the Muslim religion entirely. Restore HUAC. Nullify the Civil Rights Acts. Make not standing and saluting the flag a Class 1 Felony. Offer citizenship to illegals in exchange for military service. Install new "monitors" for all local, state, and federal elections. Build massive new internment camps for "undesirables". Establish a "Loyalty Clause" for all government employees. End term limits for the President. Dissolve Constitutional protections in order to, "Respond effectively to the new threats we now face". Create an extra-judicial police force for the Protection of American Purity. Draft "Articles of Allegiance" which all citizens must obey.
Better yet, why not get rid of the court entirely, and place all of it's current powers into the hands of Trump himself? After all, only he knows best what's right for this country.
4
Senator Schumer, I had accompanied three of my friends to a doctor in East Orange for abortion. Fortunately, my friends survived the ordeal. But I do not wish to go back to those inhuman days. I agree with TE. When Garland was refused, and, Mr. Trump was elected, we knew this was coming. Did you?
1
Not all Democratic voters are vegetarians. Most of us like us some red meat, just like Trump's "base." You got any for us? If not, leave my restaurant.
5
Thank goodness rights, endowed by the Creator, are protected by our Constitution.
And hopefully, a Justice will be appointed who will uphold that Constitution.
And hopefully, the era of creating entitlements emanating from penumbras is over.
2
It's all so brilliantly ironic. You had two candidates for President, a women and a man, yet the man got over 50 percent of the white women vote, in other words women , especially white women elected Donald Trump. And now women are up in arms that Roe may be overturned....sorry ladies, you have nobody to blame but yourselves. If it does get overturned you deserve it. Overall 42 percent of women voted for Trump in 2016.
The impotence of our Democratic leadership is why we are facing this threat to our democracy. You and other democratic leaders stood flatfooted while McConnell denied President Obama the right to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. That missed chance is why we are in the predicament we face now. We already know the consequences of your inaction so instead of telling us what we already know why don't you tell us what YOUIR plans are?
1
Chuck: Ask yourself, "what would McConnell do?" He wouldn't just write articles for the NYT. He would shut down the Senate. He would block every piece of business starting now. He would tie up budgeting, appointments, even recess... and find a way to stop this, even if it means destroying the Senate and all comity forever. For once, don't ask yourself what your donors want.. and start acting like McConnell.
1
Schumer is useless for fighting Trumpfacism.
He is a part of the Democratic parties problem.
Weak talk, and no fight.
Mitch McConnell ran circles around the Democrat Senators.
He stole the Senate, the Supreme Court and frankly the White House from them.
3
"He stole the Senate, the Supreme Court and frankly the White House from them."
NO that's not true at all. It really bugs me when people don't take responsibility for themselves.
These were all the result of a confluence of factors, however, there is no doubt in my mind it was VOTERS who created this problem. What about the Berni-Bros who voted against Hillary? Or the misguided fools who voted for Jill Stein? Or the many, many Democrats who voted for Trump because they loathed Hillary.
Even on her worst day, Hillary was never, and could never be as bad as Trump. But they voted against her as if she was Hitler.
Life boils down to a series of Judgments. If you are too lazy understand what each candidate stands for, or ideologically blinkered to vote for a candidate with a different point of view, or if you simply can't think for yourself, then people like Trump get elected.
Obviously, there was Russian Interference, FBI missteps, Gerrymandering that played a big part in the results and a crazy Electoral College system that handed Trump the vote in-spite of the popular vote going to Hillary. So, I am not going to lay the entire blame at the feet of the voter, but they do share a large part of the responsibility for getting Trump Elected.
The one saving grace is that America is a democracy, the American people can do their part to get Trump removed from office. The first step is to Vote the Democrats into a majority in the midterms.
2
Dear Chuck,
If you can't keep every single Democratic Senator from voting against the upcoming right-wing anti-Roe vs. Wade Trump nominee, and you cannot gain support from the two moderate female Republicans, then I request that you graciously resign your position as Minority leader.
4
What a wimpy response by Senator Schumer. If Hillary were President with an FBI special prosecutor investigation ongoing the Republicans would insist that she not be able to appoint any judges to the Supreme or Federal benches until after the investigation cleared her of any wrongdoing. Senator, stop bringing a knife to a gun fight.
7
The night of Nov. 9th, 2016, I left my weeping wife, desperately watching election returns as though the horrible reality was somehow going to change - and took a long walk. I was in a state of desperate shock not unlike when a family member had died. I looked in the windows of houses where people gathered around television sets. There was no celebrating. The image of devastated Parisians watching Hitlers troops march into the city flashed through my mind. The reason for my hopelessness was that - despite all the warnings, "the most important election in American history" apparently wasn't enough to unite a dysfunctional, incompetent Democratic Party or get half the country's eligible voters to the polls. I knew that this day was coming, and many more like it and that there wasn't a blessed thing anyone would be able to do about it. The barbarians were at the gates, and We the People whiffed. "But Hillary won the popular vote!" and $5 bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
So here we are ... calling and marching, marching and calling while the ever dynamic firebrand, Senator Schumer peers through his reading glasses & softly laments the fact that McConnell and the GOP minority have pulled off a checkmate on Democrats who couldn't get anything done when they had power, and certainly won't now that they have none. Trump will install whomever the Federalists tell him to install. The time to "resist" was a year and a half ago. Enjoy.
2
gdurt,
Can I ask you and others this question:
While you wanted anyone but Trump
why did you have at least the understanding
that it would not be a landslide but a close race
and why so many Americans voted for Trump -
even if it is against their own interests ?
Why can't the Democrats wake up and see
that while they should be the party of all the people
they are not perceived that way.
1
Why is Senator Schumer not a person to be the senate minority leader ?
Answer : He’s the Senator from Wall Street (He succeeded Hilary Clinton ,the previous senator from Wall Street)
Wall Street and democracy don’t mix.
6
Chuck now resorting to yelling FIRE in a crowded theater. Face it Chuck, creating fear and even more distrust is your specialty.
1
Geez. "Call your Senators" is the best Chuck has to offer?
No further call to action. No national strike. No leading of a mrach. No suggestion that once ... just once ... he and his colleagues might be willing to ACT like the civil rights heroes they so love to publicly embrace.
Well clearly, we need never worry about reading of Chuck Schumer's arrest for civil disobedience. This man will never write a letter from Birmingham or any other jail. What a waste of space.
1
There's nothing wrong with what Senator Schumer has written.
But, hauling off and writing a strongly worded opinion piece for the Times is not what this situation calls for.
Rather, what we need is a passionate, full-throated Democratic leader to arouse the public. Senator Schumer's low key style won't do that. Ms. Pelosi is worse.
I'm looking forward to the emergence of a national Democratic figure who will go after Trump as a liar, and incompetent and as a criminal. Not with a soft voice and a bemused expression, but with passion.
3
Agree completely. But don't bury the headline: Trump is under investigation. He should not be allowed to pick the judge who decides his fate. Full Stop.
2
A very weak-tea response to the political vandalism of McConnell, et al. Why does Schumer not even mention Merrick Garland?!?
1
No mention of Garland due to Alzheimers. Or wants to avoid responsibility for letting that happen.
President Trump did say himself "He wishes to punish women!"
Call your congressmen. Are your serious? If you are uninterested in leading get out of the way.
5
As a registered Democrat in the State of Oklahoma we have no voice. Our two Republican Senators, Inhofe and Lankford have made it completely clear they will support anything that comes from this nut case Trump. We are doomed.
Mr. Schumer we are about to see if Democrats have grown a spine.
4
If you truly meant anything you've written here, Senator Schumer, President Obama's nominee woukd be sitting on the court.
2
I don't believe the SJ will touch the abortion issue at all. HRC told us his is settled law, after all. And she should know, she is going to be the first woman president! In all seriousness, outside a few hardcore bible thumpers, there is no reason to panic. The upside of the new justice is that no longer will we subject to the flights of fancy by the minority justices, who site extraneous factors in making decisions and are against the President at every turn.
3
i will never forgive schemer from listening to Netanyahu's address to congress.
3
Senator Schumer, you are preaching to at least 67% of the American choir. You need to post your beliefs within the halls of our nation's Congressional, Executive and Judicial branches. Is there any law or constitutional amendment that prevents you from doing that? If not, please go do it.
2
Dude, it's time to retire. And I'm a lifelong Democrat and nearly Sixty. We need fighters, not smooth talking appeasers. Seriously.
4
How is it even possible to take disingenuous Chuck, seriously? It isn't and therefore, his opinion is meaningless.
You don't even know who the nominee is yet, but you are sure our rights hang in the balance. Another example of your coming across as a political hack, for whom I would never vote.
1
Did you read his column? The Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation have hand picked 25 nominees. These right-wing "think tanks" have had a hand in judicial picks for many, many years. They are not concerned about the rights of all Americans, only the rights of the wealthy and corporations.
1
Then stop armchair coaching a Hebrew Day Camp T-Ball Team. Remember when Obama was running for re-election and you said on Meet The Press that Newt Gingrich would make a great prez? I do. We’re tired of you. And Pelosi. And I’m a gay dem. Beat it. Go invest in something somewhere and get out.
2
Interesting word, "Rights". Somehow, in the liberal lexicon, "Rights" have become more important than the word "Responsibilities". If we call something a "right"...it becomes somehow inviolate, even when we neglect personal responsibility, or trample the rights of others.
Somehow...just living withing our borders entitles anyone to:
--a right to housing
--a right to have a cell phone
-- a right to be fed
--a right to free health care
--a right to free college tuition
--a right to free daycare
--Illegal immigrants have the right to break our laws, invade our land, the right to drivers' licences, in-state tuition--and medical care--and to have their children educated for free in our schools. And liberals would now like to give illegals the right to vote.
And somehow, the rights of gay folks are more important than those who have deeply held religious beliefs
Somehow, the rights of the unborn are subjugated to the rights of the mother--who wishes to remove a life from her body--even to the 3rd trimester.
Somehow, the rights of Trump officials to dine at their leisure, or go about their daily lives, are less important than those who disagree with the administration's policies.
Yes..."Rights" is a funny word--especially when it's liberals who are claiming them. Somehow, everyone has a right to everything--without the corresponding responsibilities-- of taking care of oneself, obeying the laws, or respecting the rights of people who are not liberal.
4
The elephant in the room is a Traitor in the White House. Trump is a Traitor.
Trump has intentionally impeded and obstructed the investigation into his illegal coup, and his money laundering business that led to his becoming a Russian subject for Kompromat.
Why in the world should the Senators of either party, if they truly consider themselves loyal Americans, entertain the idea of having a man not only select, but screen and approve the judge who might well preside over a a case he intends to bring against the right of America to hold him accountable?
That is the most important issue, and Schumer is a flawed leader in not having the guts to identify and state it loudly and with the maximum force necessary to make this evident to our nation.
3
exactly right... and right before our eyes.
Trump's plan is to become a dictator and his nominee must pass the litmus test of loyalty, meaning protecting Trump above all else.
Senators! wake up and smell the coffee. the con man is trying to swipe our country!
Bipartisanship ended when a black man was elected POTUS twice by a MAJORITY of Americans. The never compromise irrational radicals took over through theft, suppression, dirty tricks & money (foreign and domestic), and foreign assistance.
Anyone believe the trump-GOP has room for moderate Republicans, centrists and decent folks of any type? These cannibals eat their own if they stray from their cultist trump dictates.
The ONLY litmus test for trump's SCOTUS selection is LOYALTY to trump.
A mandate-less POTUS who lost the majority vote by millions, a mandate-less Senate with barely 50.5% GOP control and a mandate-less SCOTUS all acting like they have a mandate from all of us enacting edicts from a minority of extremists and wealthiest in our nation and Russia over the clear majority of Americans on all the issues at stake - healthcare, privacy, women's and human rights, protections against dirty money and POTUS self-pardoning himself.
They'll follow "settled law" - so wealthy Citizen's United against the rest of the country's citizens stands for all time?
An illegitimate president, who lost the majority vote and admits to violating and assaulting women's bodies gets to chose a SCOTUS judge to make it legal to violate and assault women's bodies. How Christian!
The lawless and disorderly POTUS is the law and order POTUS? Give be a break!
Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society mission is to shrink government to facilitate control by wealthy private theocratic interests.
2
You are a United States Senator. The leader of your party. What are you going to do about it?
4
Senator Schumer...Take a cue from Paul Ryan. Retire.
5
I'm sure our Founding Fathers were thinking about abortion rights when they wrote the constitution. Chuck Chuck.
3
And not one word from Chuck Schumer about the fact that a healthy, lifetime appointee randomly steps down days before a NYT report linking him, his financier son & Russia-connected Deutsche Bank to Trump & a billion dollar loan deal.
How about saying that Trump has ZERO right to appoint anyone to the SCOTUS while both the Justice Kennedy scandal and the FBI investigation are underway? Writing editorials that have no affect whatsoever and attacking brave, patriotic Democratic women like Rep. Maxine Waters who are pushing back against this flagrant criminal enterprise occupying the White House is all we get from the Democratic leadership.
1
Then he should have figured out how to keep the Senate in the first place.
I think overturning Roe V Wade will be the death knell for the GOP. Let the regressive states ban abortion and let the progressive states keep it. And by the way, please retire Chuck. We're done with your failed leadership.
2
Sentor Schumer: our nation is at a great danger. Please mobilize every resource to defeat the puppet nomination by Trump. Oraganize repeated massive protest march in every city in front of the offices of house of representatives and senators. Identify the dark money behind the nomination- publicize tne business ventures they run. Let us close the chanel of dark money by hurting the pocket of the crooks. Call for boycott of those companies so that those crooks think twice before opening their wallets to destroy our great nation.
Who you going to run? Franken had a chance, but NOO.
Get out of the way
Chuck Schumer is right but what is to be done about it? Democrats should NOT be arguing now. Arguments can WAIT till after the elections. Idealism is a fine thing but for now pragmatism should be the party’s goal.
Bernie’s people should keep their “pie in the sky” dreams on hold or Democrats will lose in 2018. And Bernie should just plain shut up! He is a disruptive old man and should go home and sit in his rocking chair till November 2018 is won
2
Then why didn't you fight for our rights when Merrick Garland was blackballed and stone walled by Mitch McConnell? Oh of course, you just expected Hillary Clinton to win. Nice strategic move there Mr. Schumar.
3
Yes, Senator, we're with you. But do you and the Dem leadership have the guts and ability to hold the line within your party? Can you muster the needed Democratic No-votes? Can you and Pelosi do more then tread carefully, afraid to wake the baby? (Psst, the baby is awake and its president!!)
Start spewing some fire! Start showing you can and will fight like newly minted Congresspeople and Senators. Show you're willing to go to the mat, and not throw air-punches. Show some emotion! Stop sounding like a bored, and tired college professor...be a fire-brand! Get riled-up!
I suggest you look to these new, younger and progressive idea filled candidates for inspiration. They like most of us are p/ssed that Dems have been asleep, and gave away the 2016 election. They are angry that establishment Dems failed to recognize and hype-up how important SCOTUS appointments are. For decades the GOP and their supporters have been working for these appointments. While Dems lit candles and hoped for the best.
Senator, if you and Pelosi, and others can rally the Dems to vote as a block, you're all gonna have to get dirty and go to the mat. Do you have it in you? Does Pelosi? Can the Dems in red states handle the weight?
We'll see...
1
It is clear to me that there is an organized effort by the Far Right to take over the NYT opinion pages by flooding the comment section with Far Right attacks. Many of the writers are pretending to to be dissatisfied Democrats.
1
Wow. You have a lot of nerve. The time to fight was 2016, when Mcconnell sat on Garland. NOW you want to stand up and fight?
Get lost, you helped get us here.
4
Mr. Schumer: Don't strain yourself. You're a bit late to the party--sit down and catch your breath.
6
McConnell constantly outfoxes! He will get his nominee.
1
You should immediately resign your position as minority leader because you are super-incompetent for the job.
You believe that being on the right side of history in expanding the rights of every group and minority is more important than winning elections. Never mind that there are voters opposed to abortion-on-demand, LGBT rights, relaxed immigration, gun control, etc.
Well Trump has been accumulating the voters opposed to your liberal positions and has become a winner, whereas your policies have not added one single vote for the Dems and you are a loser. Leave before the Dems are destroyed forever.
1
Senator Schumer, Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the importance of correctly choosing a candidate that will support the tenants of the basic rights and freedoms extended by our evolving law and the need for reinforcing the Separation of Powers in our Constitution.
I must remind you that most Americans -- conservatives and liberal, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents are not certain that the President is legitimate and are waiting for the Special Counsel Mueller's report. Clearly we should not proceed with a vote until it has been determined that the President's campaign organization was NOT complicit in the well documented effort financed by interests in Russia to meddle and possibly affect the outcome of the election.
I have many conservative friends, who are embarrassed by the President's behavior. They also have their fingers crossed that his decisions may end the economic recovery and by not well thought out trade policies will erase the economic dynamism that was started in 2009.
I hope that in your time before the camera's on C-Span and in your public outreach you will continue to reach out to voters who are disappointed in the Administration's performance.
I remind you that the country, prior to the ACA, registered their strong preference for universal health insurance/Medicare-for-All in national poll after poll.
Remember the problem is and has been for a very long time that health care costs were rising at a faster rate than U.S. economic growth.
1
Foreign government interference is serious. At a minimum, we should wait until the special counsel and the Senate Committee on Intelligence completes their work.
Remember the President did not win the popular vote, he does not have a popular mandate to run roughshod over social and economic norms of the country that have been developed since WWII.
We have been making social and economic progress in many areas. There are problems in income inequality and access to education and healthcare that both republicans and democrats have indicated they want to solve. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzQYA9Qjsi0
The Trump Administration has disadvantaged American by running away from developing an economy that can operate without fossil energy. There needs to be a lot of effort put into easing the transition to a new source of energy.
I favor an international "Manhattan Project" to respond to the certain economic crisis created by global warming. We do not need more isolationism or more drift to oligarchy. Instead, we need to shield our system from Big Donors/Citizens United money, that competes with public speech.
I mention the Big Money because we would now have a 300 mph superconducting Maglev running along our Interstate Highways per the ideas of the late Senator Moynihan, James Powell & Gordon Danby of Brookhaven. www.magneticglide.com Instead, the Maglev developed by Japan, based on Powell and Danby's system is proposed and funded by the U.S. and the State of Md.
1
This Supreme Court is the most activist in history. Ir overturned long settled doctrine about gun control, corporate involvement in election rights, labor law and many others. It is even more reactionary than the court that tried to abolish the New Deal, and would probably have agreed with the Dred Scott decision if it had the chance. Now, a president under investigation for high crimes and misdemeanors will try to appoint a judge who will clear him. If there aren't enough Republican senators with a conscience, The United States that we knew would be dead.
3
The very large elephant in the room is of course that no one called before the bar has the right - much less the opportunity - to choose his own judge. The headlong rush to appoint a Supreme Court Justice is plainly meant to accomplish this act before Trump is formally accused. There is no other reason to move this quickly and thoughtlessly. Whether in truth Mr. Mueller's investigation will culminate before mid-September, the current administration and its apparatchiks believe it will and are intent on guarding everything they can. Let's slow down before there's a mistake that cannot be corrected.
1
Mr. Schumer,
I am a lifelong democrat, and while I whole-heartedly respect the views expressed in this piece, I believe it is your responsibility--not ours--to convince others on the Senate to block ANY of Trump's Supreme Court nominees. We already knew that all these hard-won rights hung in the balance when Gorsuch was confirmed, yet the Democratic party failed to present a united front, and three senators jumped ship and voted for Gorsuch because they live in states where Trump received a sizable majority (Heidi Heidkamp, ND; Joe Manchin, WV; Joe Donnelly, IN). Please tell us what you personally are doing to make sure the Democrats are united in opposition this time.
We need to adopt a solid message, not just complain about rights we may lose.
1. No new Supreme Court nominations will be countenanced while Trump is the subject of an active investigation.
2. Gorsuch (and any new Trump appointees) should recuse himself if the Supreme Court must decide on any issues related to the Mueller investigation.
3. Restore the 60-vote threshold, and insist on the illegitimacy of heavily partisan Senate votes that will now be decided 51-49.
4. Insist that New York and other liberal states will remain safe havens for those seeking abortions, access to healthcare, and gay marriage, even in the event that these are overturned at the federal level.
5. Work to enact universal health care in New York State.
2
What has Sen Schumer done for abortion rights for his entire career. How have the Democrats protected choice as it has withered across the USA. They made it a non-issue, until right now when all we are left with is Republican Women left to decide that future.
The Democrats would not be impotent when it came to the Supreme Court but for the "leadership" of Sen Schumer. Maybe Sen Schumer should have thought about this all when the seat Scalia held fell vacant. Maybe he should've been more forceful in saying that women's rights were a litmus test for the Democratic Party. Saying that, although there might be room for a personal or religious opposition to having an abortion, that the choice to leave it up to women was necessary for the party. That there was no space for anti-choice "democrats".
But this wasn't the case.This was not what Sen Schumer fought for as the rich got richer. Women's issues were not wealthy enough "special interest group". Not enough money to go into his campaign coffers.
If Sen Schumer was a fighter, we wouldn't be here. But he's not, and we are.
3
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Schumer is playing a combination of Chicken Little and the boy who cried wolf. While the financial outlook of the nation has changed drastically for all Americans, my everyday life hasn't changed an iota from Bush to Obama to Trump. I still enjoy all the freedoms that every American has enjoyed for many, many years. The claims he makes about major rights changes as early as next year are just laughable on the face of it. Does Schumer not understand the process to get a case heard by the Supreme Court? It takes years for cases to wind thru the court system and then the SCOTUS has to agree to hear a case appealed to them. Time for Schumer, the MSM and the left to simmer down, take a breath and realize it really isn't the end of the world or this nation as we know it.
3
This is such an important issue that I wonder why we American citizens aren't asked to vote on it. In fact, I can't understand why we haven't followed the lead of Australia and other progressive countries and installed UNIVERSAL VOTING. We wouldn't have to use "get out the vote campaigns" to get more people to the voting boxes because it would be their civic responsibility to do so. I for one would rather vote on this myself than leave it to the politicians with their wily ways.
The US Citizenship and Immigration Services has a 100 question manual which all candidates for citizenship get well before their exam and are expected to memorize for their oral exam. Question 49 states: What is one responsibility that is only for United States citizens? There are two correct answers: the first is "serve on a jury" and the second is "vote in a federal election".
There are precious few things that are currently required of us as citizens. Why aren't all of us required to vote? What are our politicians afraid of? Or is all of their talk about wanting us to participate in our government just a cruel joke?
3
Because America was founded on freedom, and not dictatorial rule. People are free to choose to vote, or not vote. Why do Democrats constantly want to take rights and freedoms away from Americans?
2
By refusing to holding hearing McConnell ABDICATED the Senates right to "advise and consent".
Obama should have installed Garland - Period.
And, if McConnell had a problem with that, he could have taken it up with the newly formed Supreme Court.
6
McConnell could have held hearings, and allowed a vote, and Garland would have been voted down. Why put Garland through that? McConnell was also respecting tradition and precedent in observing the Biden Rule - that no President should nominate a SC Justice during a presidential election year.
1
I know it doesn't matter to people like you, but, what you have stated is patently untrue.
There is no such thing as the "Biden Rule". That is a fabrication. A LIE created by the GOP propaganda machine in order to defend their Constitutional theft of a Supreme Court seat. Biden made a suggestion during a speech - that's it. It was never a "rule" and it was never acted on - Period.
But, for those who say things like, "Benghazi was a thousand times worse than the Iraq War!", it comes as no surprise.
And how, exactly, do you personally know that Garland wouldn't have been confirmed? Do you use the same "Magic-8-Ball" that Trump uses to determine foreign and domestic policy? LOL!
Senator Schumer
Thank you for publishing your thoughts on these weighty matters, but please note, that abortion is important only for rich, white women. The vast majority of women and men want affordable childcare, reliable transportation, safe neighborhoods, and good paying jobs. If you do these things, you will not need to worry about votes to advance a thoughtful, liberty-infused population. Thanks again.
4
I disagree. Rich women, of any race or ethnicity, who want/need an abortion will have the means and connections to get one. Access to legal abortions is really important--sometimes life-saving--for middle class or poor women who don't have the means and connections, and for whom access to legal abortion is crucial for economic and/or physical reasons.
And the most successful way to less abortion is access to birth control, something that many of these so-called pro-life groups are against.
3
Really? Rich women can get abortions no matter what the law is. Use your head!
2
@Dan Holton - You are so wrong about 'only rich white women' finding the right to choose. Choice is a fundamental human right. If you don't care about it, you need to wonder why you don't - if you truly imagine that choice is something only for white women, then you need to educate yourself. In any case, you most assuredly do not speak for the 70% of the country who do care very deeply about choice.
1
Ok Chuck, we’ll go ahead and tell our senators.
But let’s ask also---what kind of a country do we have that our senators might vote for anyone who would overturn Roe or undo ACA? And that we should have to call senators to persuade them to not block health care for their voters?
Right wing parties in other advanced democracies accept heath care for all and abortion choice, while here the extreme radicals take over.
In any 21st century democracy, health care and abortion choice should be settled, centrist, accepted policy. And it should be a norm that religious fundamentalists and plutocratic corporate megadonors should NOT be dominating policy.
What century are we in? What country is this?
What about church/state separation? What about America’s founding, that rejected plutocratic rule over the rights of average citizens? Citizens are not protected from threats to our rights in America’s unique 21st C politics.
9
We have thrown a hundred years of social policy out the window with the bath water. But be calm, accommodate, contextualize, rationalize the actions of an insurgent mob of robber barons...everything will be OK...really it will...wait...isn't that grandma lying in the street?...I thought she was in the nursing home!
2
Democracy is not a spectator sport.
I was amazed to see all the energy attacking Schumer (and Pelosi) here when Schumer is encouraging people to contact their Senators--
Does anyone imagine for a minute that Senators' offices are not being flooded by an anti-abortion calling campaign?
The anti-abortion campaign by Republicans (like the married Republican in PA who told his mistress to get an abortion) is a cynical campaign, no doubt encouraged and funded by NRA and Citizens United money--ie people who want a Supreme Court that is anti-worker, pro-polluter, pro-unlimited weapons in our streets and pro unlimited contributions from the wealthy (all Democrats voted against Citizens United) will be hiding behind a campaign to rev up anti-abortion phonecalls.
Senators do respond to phonecalls from constituents, who, after all, vote, So, do your part and call.
As for Schumer and Pelosi--as those of us paying attention for decades know well, Republicans will attack any Democratic leader. Instead of turning fire on each other, fight against the real problem: too many Republicans in elected office, e.g. because too many Democrats stayed home in 2010. (and too many Republicans on the Supreme Court because Nader and Stein insisted there's "no difference between Democrats and Republicans--ie no difference between Alito and RBG??)
Schumer's request in this column is reasonable---don't sit back and complain; participate in the fight
5
If [insert GOP President's name here] gets to choose the next SCOTUS Justice, all our civil liberties will be in jeopardy, we will lose all of our rights and the sky will fall.
Nixon, Ford, Reagan Bush 1, Bush 2, Trump from 1968-2017 and yes the sky is still there.
4
Yes. Except that Trump and the current Republicans (Tea Party + evangelicals) are now an extreme hard-right group (white supremacists, gerrymandering, pro-corporation and oligarchs, anti-unions, etc.) and now run the show. Trump, his administration and Tea Party/Republicans have already eviscerated financial, consumer and environmental regulations, the ACA, filled their oligarch's pockets with tax refunds (not ours), ballooned the deficient, and are now aiming for Social Security and Medicare. Maybe you're OK with that; most Americans are not.
1
You guys say exactly that every time.
@Ordell - yes, silly us, we do say it all the time even though it's been evident for quite awhile that Trump/Republican cultists willfully ignore facts, history, science and statistics.
1
While proposing action on a Supreme Court nominee, why not also propose a change so that the SC justices serve an 18-year term? Democrats need to stop reacting to everything and start acting.
4
"Federalist Society" lawyers hold that the states are preeminent over the federal government, whose role is limited to diplomacy and war.
2
Nearly every time President Trump addresses supporters or gets a chance to list his accomplishments, he takes a dig and mocks Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for his last minute vote against repealing and replacing Obamacare.
With an insensitive almost cruel disregard for the Senator's dignity as he battles a life threatening illness, Trump has brought it up three times in the past week alone. He is more concerned with ramping up his base ahead of November's midterm election and placing his nominees to the SCOTUS before the Senate.
One never knows if Senator McCain might be able to lobby his colleagues by phone from his ranch in Arizona for the candidate who most represents his conscious and convictions whatever they may be at this incredibly defining moment of his life and legacy. One can only hope and pray he would join his colleagues like Senator Collins and break ranks as he so courageously did with his thumbs down saving the AHCA.
Clearly this is wishful thinking. He might not be there in person to vote but his influence on the fate of the nation may rest through the votes of a few long term friends and colleagues. Senator McCain would forever be held in America's history as the "real hero" he always was and the country would be grateful for his final opinion.
6
On HBO's Real Time, reserves Marine Corps Major, a veteran of three tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now five term Republican US Representative Duncan D. Hunter stated that he privately joked with fellow Marines about John McCain's ability as an aviator. BIlL MAHER: The way (the White House is) treating McCain, this came from Trump originally. He didn't like people who get captured." DUNCAN HUNTER: "I've made the same John McCain joke with my friends, other Marines, right? If I was a pilot instead of a ground pounder, I'd be a better pilot, I wouldn't get shot down. I've made that joke but I've made it to my friends not on national TV." Well, you just did.
I think about McCain in prison...I think about GWBush, who never served overseas, landing on an aircraft carrier for the optics, I think about Hunter who join the Marines the day after 9/11(!) and then draft dodger Trump. And the 27,000 KIA in Europe of the Army 8th Air Force. Does anyone ever blame or even joke about that it's the fault of the ground troops if they shot? A supersonic missile, like a bullet, is a very difficult thing to evade. You gotta joke around, I get it, but jump to the guy's defense and don't let us know about the in-the-Corps stuff as a way to excuse the White House's behavior.
Back on topic: After 10 days Obama should have sent Garland to work. When Judiciary Committee refused to hear MG it gave up its to right to consent. The Framers never expected a perversion of checks & bals like that.
1
Thanks for mansplaining it to us, Chuck. Now, what are YOU going to do about it?
15
Perfect!
1
The sky is falling Chucky. And it's the politicians of your ilk who are intent in destroying democracy. And you will be all too happy to eliminate our rights in the name of "democracy." When you are in the majority, taking away our rights is defended in the name of democracy. When you are in the minority, you look to the courts to take away our rights.
Face it Chucky, it has nothing to do with "rights." It's all about the votes. It's all about looking like you are on the "right" side of the issue with the least amount of political risk to yourself.
6
What rights has he taken away from you? The right to tell other people what they should do with their own lives and bodies? You don't have that right and neither do your GOP counterparts. You just think you do. People of your ilk are not interested in helping other people--just criticizing them and feeling "morally" superior. You couldn't care less what happens to babies after they are born. They could die without health insurance, get an inferior education and be shot and killed in those same schools. They could languish in prison or on parole for decades. They could have real rights stripped from them by hateful, self-absorbed people who want to bring harm to anyone who doesn't look like them or belong to their "tribe." But when that piece of that falling sky finally hits you, you'll look to some Democratic messiah to save you until its once again safe to vote against your economic interests to stick it the "other," all the while proclaiming what a good American patriot you are.
Hey Chuck time for you to resign and take Nancy Pelosi with you.
12
Well firstist Charles will you pledge to stop taking corporate and oligarch donations and doing THEIR bidding, and stop lining your own pockets from the only real form of trickle down from the wealthiest? Secondly explain to me once again how it is that the Democrats get premium healthcare for life but the people they ha ha serve do not merit the same? It is done in other countries for less and how shameful we here live less longer than those who get single payer. And do not get me started on how we have more infants deaths and oh yes, wages which have stagnated for years whilst corporations are booming away. Chuck you and Nancy and Tom have long forgotten your base. Yeah you figure out what promises to make to still get elected and then you go back and drink what the oligarchs and wall street serve and slip into forgetfulness and serve them instead of the
abandoned voters. Oh and when things come up where you are expected to stand up for us little people, you shower us with terse and desperate demands to chip in to help you guys defeat the latest Republican gambit and most usually of course you do not. But you keep our desperate dollars anyway. So do I trust you and your ilk to do anything this time but ask us for more money? Nope. The progressives are in the house and they will shove you out and then we will see some real representation of the majority. We are so tired of your corrupt and useless ways
7
Duh It is not just Democrats who get the platinum health care--it is any one of the 500 plus representatives and senators in the US Capitol--maybe their staff too. When we all get that level of care then the Liar in Chief will have fulfilled his promise of the best and least expensive healthcare possible.
2
Yes, of course you are right. I am just fit to be tied at the Democrats who used to be for the workers now scooping up the not so free gift bags like the rest of the corrupted congress and maybe their staffs as well. ( well staff may get only gold or silver health care to keep them in their place) They get the best health care, they get to keep the bribes which are in the millions and they get great pensions and only have to fool some of the people some of time. They have to make some noise once in a while, but hey it is a great gig if you have no
conscience, only a modicum of empathy, no work ethic, no accountability and you love money and power a lot more than honor
and the wellbeing and freedom of the people
in this country.
This horse has all-but left the barn. Only the tail remains inside.
I doubt two GOP Senators will defect and block a hard-right Supreme Court majority. This has been the goal for decades. It was likely lost when we allowed conservative radicals to call themselves, "Constitutional Originalists". We allowed them to bless ideas which had been out of favor since the turn of the last century - the time of Teddy Roosevelt.
We have corporations in our elections, a personal right to firearms, weakening of unions, an irrational immigration ban, hell's bells - even a President, all from these "Originalists".
Stare decisis be damned, these "Originalists" get to tell us what the Constitution has really has meant all along. Two centuries of the best legal minds in America pondering the text and history be damned! The Originalists assert they possess deeper truths.
This thinking gave us Scalia. All else aside, he was a radical. His ideas and justifications lie at the heart of the assertion of these newly discovered and rediscovered "truths".
It's baloney. It's dangerous. If you know "the truth", you can justify anything. But it reigns on this court.
Until the idea is thrown to the dust bin and those Justices who practice it leave the court, we will live with the large and small legal injustices. Our nation - our people - will be the less until then.
3
Schumer: Why post this on the NYT?
7
The sad fact of the matter is that it appears that almost all the Republicans are eager to confirm another judge Taney: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and author of the Dred Scott decision.
Taney is remembered for "{black people} had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."
Taney's court declared the Missouri Compromise (1820) unconstitutional, thus permitting slavery in all of the country's territories ... and triggered the civil war.
Taney hoped to settle the issue of slavery in its favor by diktat from the bench, and succeeded only in destroying the south as he knew it, killing about 620,000 out of 31 million (less than California today), and leaving his name reviled though history. He lived to see his home state, Maryland, abolish slavery in the last year of the civil war.
The plain fact of the matter is that Trump and the angry Republicans are the remnants of the south that lost the war and remains unreconciled to it, 150 years later. Trump gives it a superficial bling and accentuates the crudity, but it's still just about LBJ's "“If you can convince the lowest white man...”
Are they stupid enough and enraged enough to vote in another Taney? Or will a handful of Republicans with a shred of decency and sense prevent that?
5
Is this all you've got Chuck?
Thanks for nothing.
14
I'm sure he'll pick another great presidential candidate in 2020.
1
Chuck,
Thanks for the pep talk. Now please get on the Senate floor. Kick butt and don't take any prisoners.
3
The NYTs are Schumer are in bed together. I'm shocked shocked! Hey Chuck. Straight talk express. Trump's nominee will be anti abortion and anti gay marriage. She will be confirmed because your predecessor Harry Reid blew up the Senate rules. Now we can shove this nominee right down your throat and there is zero that you can do except whine like a stuck pig. Elections have consequences. Trump won. Get over it.
5
You know, Chuck, you seem like a nice guy, but since living in NY state I've been confronted by the NY Taxation and Finance who have contradicted IRS policy, closed down my C-corp domestic business, contacted Merrill Lynch saying they were confiscating $11,000.00 giving me 3 days to protest their actions. (Merrill was none too pleased) all to the disbelief (again, as they hammered my 1995 return lovely H+R Block matron looked at me with sorrow "nothing wrong here, you are in the ride of your life".
Don't give me this bedtime story about my rights being in jeopardy, okay? NY State through HPD dumped me on the street never paying me my $40,000 relocation fees which finally dawned on me was on account of me not paying off their rep.
I read this soap story as such unto itself while I cower from state agencies in New York.
9
Stop your crying and get a better candidate next time.Constantly bawling ,these fools.
5
Hillary is running in 2020. Unless the buzzard lands. I'm praying for the buzzard.
2
Senator, yes the right to abortion, a constitutional right that should not be left to state legislatures, is important and settled, but other important issues deserve attention in the process as well. Conservatives love the Second Amendment, but despise the Seventh (the right to jury trials), so arbitration will continue to deprive everyday workers of their rights. Title VII will be further narrowed. Antitrust laws will be narrowed even more than now, giving powerful corporations even less reason to compete fairly. And procedural rules will continue to be erected to deprive litigants in serious ways; class actions, already narrowed, will effectively go away, to the pleasure of the Chamber of Commerce. The right wing despises the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments as well under the guise of "law and order" (because, of course, the rest of us love lawlessness!), so our jails will continue to grow. Fortunately, these are cases and issues that a nominee's record cannot hide from, unlike ACA and abortion, which a nominee rarely confronts during his or her career. The EPA will become a neutered agency. "I respect precedent and I call strikes and balls" will continue as a refrain, but an empty one (see Justices Roberts and Gorsuch). A Federalist Society endorsed nominee is just that: a heavy right leaning judge with an activist agenda to leave everything to the States unless it involves guns and corporations.
1
"...the right to abortion, a constitutional right that should not be left to state legislatures..." Pardon my ignorance, but exactly where exactly in the Constitution does it mention abortion?
In the words of Harry Reid, sit down and shut up.
4
What a misrepresentation of Judge Kennedy by Senator Schumer. Stop spinning Chuck. Good Grief! If, Justice Kennedy is a liberal justice, then I'm the Queen of England. Kennedy, was like Roberts, a conservative who occasionally would dip his toe in on the other side just to say, "Hey, I'm not that bat spit crazy".
Please, please tell me Senator that this is not the big strategy and message that you plan to use to take back the Senate in November. If so, I predict that the Dems will lose Senate seats, and as McConnell proved with the Judge Garland nomination it is the Senate (meaning Mitch McConnell) that gets to decide who will get to the Supreme Court, not the President, and the next time McConnell may be picking RBG's replacement.
4
Sorry Chuck but you, and we, don't stand a chance. Trump has the Neo Nazis, the KKK, and all the bigots and racists in the country solidly behind him. That's a lot of ignorant uneducated morons that constitute almost half the country who really don't care if the country turns into an authoritarian dictatorship and there's no way of fighting them because Trump has said these are "good people" and he should know because he's the biggest one of them all.
2
Maybe you Democrats should have thought about all this before you killed the filibuster. Now you "Inherit the Wind". Suck-it-up, Chucky.
8
Senator Schumer and his colleagues too often go gently into the night...or the day for that matter...with such calm, logical prose. The knife to the gunfight phrase has a point.
Maybe it is time to trot out the absolute best quality hell, fire and brimstone. Penetrates better.
4
Howard Zinn reminded us shortly before he died that we the people need to get out there at all levels to maintain or take back our democracy. It is not enough and it is downright dangerous to assume that our leaders are going to do what we want done. I believe we have found that to be true by the devastation that is being perpetrated upon our once admirable republic.
We are taught that democracy is protected by our three branches of government, but history shows all the pivitol movements that saved our democracy in the past bubbled up and burst forward from the PEOPLE.
1
Yes, the Supreme Court is important but I wish the members of Congress would devote more time and effort to solving the many practical problems facing our many discontented citizens of all stripes. If Mr. Schumer and Mr McConnell, and all their feckless colleagues, would stop playing solely to their bases and start working hard on consensus-building, we might get some good legislation that would not be endlessly challenged in the courts.
Believe it or not, the courts can’t really end our deepest conflicts. Whether decisions in Roe v. Wade, Citizens United, or about Obamacare, stand or fall, we will not receive from the Supreme Court satisfactory resolutions to the perceived conflicts between a woman’s rights and a fetus’s, or between free speech and economic fairness, or between the value of access to health care and the responsibility to pay for it. In fact, it may be that focusing on the winner-take-all outcomes courts give us only cements our resentments and blinds us to other resolutions.
2
"Enormously important issues hang in the balance: the right of workers to organize, the pernicious influence of dark money in politics, the right of Americans to marry who they love, the right to vote."
The left is very eager to protect unlisted rights, read into the constitution, by activist justices.
"...settled law is only settled until a majority of the Supreme Court decides it is not."
Those same justices would erase the second amendment.
"If the Senate rejects an extreme candidate, it would present President Trump the opportunity to instead select a moderate, consensus nominee."
Yup. I can hear Trump now, "Darn, the Senate rejected my nominee. Now I have to picked a more moderate justice." jk rotflms.
"...we should all want a more representative process for choosing the next Supreme Court justice."
That is it. THAT IS EXACTLY IT. The President selects the nominee. The Senate advises and consents. There are no marshmallows and camp fire sing-a-longs.
1
Those of us in New York who are familiar with Chuck Schumer know that he is all talk and little action. He does an exceptional job of churning out press releases and showing up at events supporting the latest good cause. But after that, hardly anything changes. We’ve become accustomed to voting for him only because the other candidates are worse.
One small example close to home: Residents of the metropolitan area asked him to do something about the window-rattling airplane and helicopter flights over their homes. In response, there were Schumer news releases and press conferences galore, and multiple promises to change things. Today, the problem is still here. The windows still rattle, especially on summer weekends when private jets and helicopters transport Schumer’s wealthy patrons between their Manhattan penthouses and Hamptons retreats.
He and Pelosi have done precious little to fight for average citizens. But they’ve both done a good job of keeping their solid relationships with big business. It’s time for them to exit in favor of fresh blood and new thinking. They sat back while Republicans fraudulently demonized Hillary Clinton and they were active participants as the GOP miscast Bernie Sanders as some wild-eyed radical.
As a lifelong Democrat, I am sure there are some good thoughts in this piece with which I could agree. But just seeing the Schumer byline makes it hard to read further. Many of my fellow Democrats feel the same.
5
Our rights do not "hang in the balance." There is no balance. That balance -- or more exactly the little that was left of it -- was destroyed when Trump was elected. Or arguably two years before that when the disastrous mid-terms of 2014 put the Tea Party in power at the federal and state levels -- in a census year which means they can gerrymander the minority's hold on power for another decade. And, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the balance will remain destroyed for at least a generation. This is what happens, Senator Schumer, when the Democrats decide to nominate an unpopular candidate whose slogan boiled down to: "It's My Turn."
3
Senator Schumer is right about one thing: Our rights do hang in the balance.
The right to bear arms
The right to refuse to pay a union that we are not a member of, when it chooses to lobby against values that we believe in
The right to insure that those who vote are US citizens with the right to vote
The right to free speech and free assembly, even when the majority disagrees with them
The right for a baby to be born
The right to prevent terrorists from countries that hate us from entering the US.
The liberal narrative was that it was a "Muslim ban". That was false. There are 51 countries that are majority Muslim. Only 6 were included in the ban. They were the ones with major ISIS, Al Qaeda, Talaban and other terrorist groups.
The right to protect our borders from illegal immigrants crossing at will
Contrary to popular belief in the DC/NYC/LA bubble, the 7 major Mexican drug cartels, which combined already import $100 BILLION per year of heroin, cocaine, meth and opioids into the US, having an open border to cross at will is NOT in our national interest. Mexico has 4 times the US murder rate, another 30,000 per year "missing and presumed dead", and millions of rapes, kidnappings and mutilations. Mexican police have a 2% success rate at solving crimes. At least 2 of those drug gangs have standing armies larger than Canada's. A wall won't stop the Mexican drug gangs, but it's a good start.
4
What we need is a new Senate minority leader.
3
Get rid of those phony glasses for starters. Readers'
do not give you more authority.
There is a space between far left progressive and slow moving, play nice Dems. Just like there is a space between open borders and separating families.
1
Let me get this straight......McConnell held up over 100 judge nominations and illegally vetoed the SCOTUS during the Obama administration and now Trump is filling all those vacancies that were purposely held open so the courts can be stacked in favor of one party.
And not only that, but the Federalist Society is funneling recommendations of all of their politically slanted judges so Trump can now fill those vacancies and the SCOTUS. The Federalist Society, you know, the same organization that tried to impeach Obama because he "overreached" his executive power?
BTW, who funds this organization?
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-federalist-impeachment-...
2
Hey, Chuck, how about you float the idea that Merrick Garland should be nominated as Anthony Kennedy's replacement?
3
Senator Schumer, what do you have to say to the fact that when Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez ran in her primary, the Democratic party leadership, of which you are part, either outright refused to support her or even actively worked against her?
"Progressive" Senators such as Kirsten Gilibrand outright supported Joseph Crowley without even so much as speaking or getting to know Ocasio-Cortez, and she wasn't the only one in doing so.
You and other top Democrats talk a good game when it comes to diversity and fielding a different slate of candidates. Too bad your words don't match your actions...
2
The time for the Democrats to fight, really fight hard, was when the GOP refused to advise and consent on Merrick Garland. There was no big fight, none whatsoever, by the senate Democrats. Instead, Trump was elected and then 9 of your Democratic colleagues voted for Gorsuch. The GOP steamrolls over the Democrats time and time again on numerous issues. Grow some "bells" with fire and stop being a doormat for the GOP as they are laughing at the Dems all the way to the bank.
And by the way, the issue of marriage equality is just as "consequential" as abortion. Hundreds of thousands of same sex couples got married and are entitled to the "federal" benefits that is accorded to traditional marriages.
2
I blame Teddy Kennedy for the problems we seem to have with the Supreme Court. Senator Kennedy's political assasignation of Robert Bork was despicable. Mr. Bork was the last nominee to the Supreme Court that had any detailed understanding of actual jurisprudence. His downfall began with his association with the unjustly reviled Richard Nixon. Kennedy got revenge by destroying Bork. Since that time, Presidents have sought only to appoint political lackeys to the Supreme Court,,,men and women who appearantly have no opinions on anything and demonstrate a willingness to carry water for one political agenda or another.....and able to gain Catholic church approval for their views on abortion.....I am not sure when we abdicated this selection power to the Catholic Church, but somewhere down the line .. we did. Finally....Pres Trump nominated an actual Judge....Neil Gorsuch, and the result seems to be OK.....other than some crazy liberals are insensed that he is "conservative"(again with the narrow political agendas)......I am willing to wait and see if Pres Trump can pull another intelligent choice from out of his Orange hair....and not hyperventilate over Roe vs Wade or ACA or any other short sighted political power play, nasty Kennedy inspired nonsense.
"...I am not sure when we abdicated this selection power to the Catholic Church". Could it be perhaps based upon the thousands year old 10 Commandments? You know the one,,," Thou shalt not kill". Or doesn't abortion qualify?
And you need to use every trick in the book to stall any vote on a nominee until after election day. You, Senator, need to rise to the occasion as you and your colleagues didn't when Obama was denied a vote on his nominee by traitor-to-democracy McConnell.
1
So, whaddya gonna do about it, Chuck? Perhaps you should have fought harder against Mitch to further the nomination of Garland??
4
Chuck,
You are so low energy! It's bad enough when you provide the public with those lackluster speeches but now your opinion pieces lack passion too. Move over Chuck. It's not your time. Let someone with passion coupled with intelligence take the lead.
Where were the Senate Democrats in 2016 when McConnell committed treason my illegally blocking the hearings for Garland, the Obama nominee?
Im a 60 year old lifelong native Calfornia Democrat and I want both Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi GONE.
No more of your talk. That's ALL IT IS.
2
How about some passion Chuckie! This type of laundry list of obvious talking points gets nowhere as by now even a jaded politico like you should know. It is time for you to quit and let people untainted by corporate money and middle of the road wishy washy politics take charge. Your demeanor and language makes it clear to me that you are not meant to win against strength. In this case the strength is coming from the most despicable of Presidents and Republican congress. And what is at stake is vital.
1
Dear Chuck,
Where were you and the other Democrats during the last 6months of Obama's presidency? You guys rolled over and allowed McConnell and the GOP to block Merrick Garland's confirmation with little resistance, placing all of your political eggs in the HRC basket. The GOP are willing to kill their own grandmothers to gain control and consolidate power. You guys talk a big game and pat each other on the back with your "High Roads" and "Fair Game Principles" while the rest of America suffers the consequences of your dithering. The GOP has been fighting at the Local, State and National level for the last 40 years to overturn Row v. Wade-- and now they will slam this soon-to-be SCOTUS victory in our faces. War isn't pretty, Chuck. Wake up, learn how to fight, or be relegated to the scrap heap of history.
A Disgusted Citizen
5
Trump will nominate someone to overturn Roe and that will cement 2018 and 2020 elections. Just because you disagree means nothing. Americans disagree with you Chuck. Not Trump. Ask them. Seriously, the Supreme court pick will cement killing Roe. Women are powerless to stop it. You are powerless as well, Chuck. Because you will not convene a council to control Democrat messaging and message discipline. Democrats are like a big tent surrounded by a circular firing squad.
3
Senator Schumer, thank you for witing this and thank you also for allowing comments on your article.
When I look at what has been going on in our country I find it haard to make up my mind whether I want to scream or slit my writsts. The action of Donald Trump make we want to scream. The inaction of the Democrats makes me want to slit my wrists.
The impression I get is that Democratic leaders are far too comfortable being in the minority--Trump's great for fundraising and no one, except us peons, expects you to actually do anything. In the meantime, Senator, the people who voted for you are losing what they once quaintly considered their rights.
I can call my red state Senators until I'm blue in the face and they're not going to lift a finger to stop Trump from doing whatever he pleases. What has to happen is that you guys have to start winning elections again and that means speaking to the fears, hopes and dreams of American citizens. The economy, healthcare, education, the environment and immigration. You have to stand for something and mean it. You have to outline the way to a future that is more attractive than what voters see looming before us today and if you're not capable of doing that, then you and the other leaders of the Democratic Party should resign.
This is not about age, Sir. This is about vision and passion.
3
If Schumer's whining, it must be good for the country.
4
I'm doing what I can at getting out the vote, since after all these many decades - several- the Dems boyh nationally and locally are too lazy, and almost as corrupt as the Repubs ..................
They always and ever fail to take care of business, so ur children and grandchildren now will apparently suffer over the next 10 - to - 44 years!
1
It is not your rights that are at stake but your desired lefts.
3
Somewhat off topic, but I wonder how many abortions Trump has paid for, you know, considering his adulterous behavior and spending habits. His hypocrisy to court the anti-abortion Christian vote is obvious and they don’t care. And, like other Republicans, he won’t care a whit for a child out of the womb..
3
In addition to voting on abortion and health care, Trump’s pick now will judge cases reaching the Court about him such as a self-pardon for crimes that Mueller might find especially about Russian collusion and obstruction of justice. *Just let that sink in.* Several Red state Democrats running for re-election will likely cave, just like they did for Gorsuch, so once the nomination hits the Senate, the person will be confirmed. *The only way to stop this train wreck* is for 2 GOP Senators to go “Independent caucusing with the Democrats” to flip control of the Senate so Schumer as Majority Leader would be 100% empowered to do what McConnell did in 2016. This buys time until Jan. 20, 2019, by which time we would have a clearer view of Mueller's investigation. We need McCain, Flake, Corker, Collins, Murkowski to put country and democracy before a GOP party tied to Trump to save our nation from fascism. You would become a true "Profile in Courage" as JFK wrote about over 50 years ago.
To begin with, Trump is not pro-life, he is pro -Trump. He will pander to nazi's if he can get their votes, and has.Trumps hypocrisy is more than one can bare. I have a Gay son who loves his country & abides by it's laws, he is a perfect example, of what an American should be.In summary, he is a TAX Paying American Citizens. However, there are people out there that believe he is a sinner, & would like to deny his union with a person he loves.
3
Mr Schumer, we thank you.
If only Schumer and Collins and the rest of the pro-abortion option-holders were smaller in number, the holocaust of Roe-Wade could be stopped, once and for all.....over 60,000,000 abortions later. Folks, the human fetus, perforce human, is not the the mother's body. It is of her body, and destined to live a life outside her body. Humanity doesn't happen at 26 weeks or whenever a mother says so, it happens at conception. It's simple biology. Ignorance of biology is no excuse for this tragedy. Let's help a mother-to-be before, during and after her pregnancy. Human rights hang in the balance. It's time to right the Roe-Wade wrongs. Too bad some of Sen. Schumer's ready tears aren't for all the taken lives.
1
Abortions were legal in New York before Roe vs Wade. They will be legal in any state that approves them after Roe vs Wade. The right to abort in the Constitution does not exist.The manufactured hysteria is all about the abortion industry who helps fund the Democrats.
The rights that hang in the balance with Democrats, a.k.a. Socialists (as exemplified by good old NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio (formerly Wilfred Wilhelm), and crazy Maxine Waters (she with the shady banking industry husband with the one thing that helped him beat the rap) are:
- low taxes
- employment
- great education in NYC's fabulous specialized high schools
- less worthless regulating beaucrats
Other than losing those traits that made America great, what do we have to lose !
3
So, just to be clear, the Democrats don't even need to know who the nominee is before reflexively opposing him or her? No doubt signs and paperwork are being prepared reading, "_______is the worst nominee ever," " After a careful review of _____'s record, I could never support _______." Anyone see a problem with this? (Hint- it's called prejudice, pre-judging the case before knowing any/all of the facts).
1
What is this holy obsession by the Left with murdering unborn babies? Left alone and undisturbed in the womb, they will become human beings just like the rest of us. Of course there are women who have been impregnated against their will; that is why adoption exists. a woman who gave birth to an unwanted child and gave it up for adoption did a very noble thing; she is a hero. Having a child out of wedlock should not be considered a scar on a woman's character but a badge of honor. don't kill them; there are millions of childless couples who would gladly cherish and raise an unwanted child
And there are millions of children throughout the world that need homes. Where is the rush to adopt them?
But of course you're not referring to them. They've emerged from the womb. Which means they no longer matter.
Korean children, Russian children are adopted in the US, many orphans live in horribly poor places like Bangladesh; there is the logistics of getting them placed with parents in the US. Obviously neighboring Mexico has plenty of orphaned and abandon children.
Heritage Foundation: Whose heritage ?? Why, old white Males. Yesterday, today and forever. Seriously.
1
With all due respect, sir, the people you need to reach do not read the NY Times.
Sorry Senator, your stale column shows how out of touch you really are with even your own reality. That we are at this point, which will last for at least several generations, is in part because of the flaccid Democratic leadership in Congress and the Party for the last ten years. You still don’t seem to grasp the urgency, the sheer panic many of us outside your orbit are feeling. We are losing America right under your nose, and you are recommending we “lock arms” with fake centrists like Susan Collins? That’s your solution?
Sorry Chuck. Your sude lost thevelection, sitting home or switching to the republican side. The supreme Court issue was clear in 2016. Your team got whipped
Now for the next 20 years at least you are stuck with a partisan, and wirse than that, an activist court that opposes all things liberal. The Constitution is meaningless
And you are in the process if blowing the 2018 election so you will face an alt-right republican president, a cowardly compliant republican congress, and an activist republican Court
Might as well tell your followers to give up
Fight a conservative to the bitter end. The supreme court needs a constitutional female center, not another knee jerk conservative.
Just more scare propaganda from the left. Not everyone thinks like you nor should they.
2
Senator Schumer's opinion and assertions are laughable. Why does the NYT give such a megaphone to a purely political, self aggrandizing individual?
Sadly he still passes as one of the faces of the Democrat party. Time to wake up New Yorkers and vote this blow hard out of office and replace with someone that actually represents you instead of his own wealth and popularity.
Okay then Chuck- grow some and fight - don't let McConnell ride over you once again.....
1
"Thank you Mr. Shumer for telling me -- any everybody -- what I already know." There was a pathetic get-together of Democrats someplace about a year ago (maybe Philadelphia) where Nancy Pelosi, Shumer, et al, stood on some benighted steps in a park and announced their new platform, their new compact with the American people: "A better deal." Is that all you could come up with?
Oy veh...FDR rolled over in his grave and buried his head in his pillow. In the Age of Trump we have accommodated to and accepted slogans and platitudes as substitutes for reasoned, constructive, effective governance. If the Democrats really expect to take back the House and Senate, they're going to have to stop standing on the sidelines and uttering the same tired platitudes: "Fixing our broken political system," and creating "Tools for success in the 21st Century."
You're right, Mr. Shumer, our rights and our country do hang in the balance. But Caspar Milquetoasty slogans are not going to walk it back from the precipice. Come up with something -- something new, fresh, dynamic, authentic, pragmatic -- you're whistling past the graveyard. And for Christ's sake, do something! The country is going down the plug-hole while you're dithering around.
2
Careful, Chuckie. You are borderline blatantly lying.
You're beat. And you only continue to confirm that by trying to defend Obamacare. It was broken before it started. Admit that. Fear mongering irrelevant has-been. The Democratic Party desperately needs this guy and Pelosi to retire into the sunset and get new, progressive leadership.
No more excuses for losing ground.
5
NYS deserves Schumer and Cuomo as CA deserves Pelosi and Moonbeam. Carry on idjits!
1
Which Olympic God blessed Donald Trump with opposition from cartoonish characters Schumer, Pelosi and Maxine Waters? When will these irritating tres amigos acknowledge the words of their spiritual leader Obama that “elections have consequences”. Do they not understand that their “resistance” is looked upon with disgust by mainstream Americans? Hey Chuckie, Youse Guys lost. Now give dese new guys a chance to drain the swamp. Meanwhile shut uppa you face. Whattsa matta, you gotta no self respect?
3
Meh. Perhaps you should have shut the government down when your republican colleagues wouldn't give Garland a hearing. That would be taking a stand. But, you are far too tame anymore to be posting tripe like this. Can not wait until you are primaried from the left.
1
BTW,
Here's your Senator contact info:
https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
AMEN!
Roe was an idiotic decision without any intellectual basis. It should be overturned and allow the states to make their own intellectual decisions.
Yes, when you stentoriously peer over those ridiculous glasses to tell us that you had to respect the institution after each time that the American Caracalla, Mitch McConnell whips you with a dirty trick or bald faced lie, you show how craven you really are. You should step down as a failure as a senator and allow a new progressive voice take your place. You are a sham.
Well then, it's time for YOU DEMOCRATS to do something!!!! Obama is right, stop whining and show some spine! This is all too sickening! Save us from this mad man. MAKE IT STOP!
Our constitution sets out the duties of the Supreme Court and there is no mention of the court being able to overturn laws of congress and acts of the president . The court itself assumed this power in Marbury v Madison. The needs to be turned back by an act of Congress. Moreover , The court is an unelected , anti democratic force in our country. Many if it’s decisions have been disastrous : Dred Scott, Korematsu etc.
A Democratic Congress can send the court back to its constitutional origins . Lacking that , it can increase the membership of the court . Wild ideas ? We live in wild times and middle of the roadism is not in order.
2
Mosst experts believe that Roe is not going down. Even with 5 pro-life justices, there is the matter of stare decisis. And, particularly because of Hellerstedt, few, if any, Court decisions are any more rock solid. If 5 male justices reversed the case, it would be a declaration of war. I fear the more Democrats talk about it, the more possible it seems. We are in a great position regarding Roe considering who might be appointed to the Court. I wouldn't stir the waters. Making noise when you're way ahead isa dubious strategy.
Bipartisan compromise and hard work initiated by Senators Gillibrand and Schumer across he aisle ensured passage of legislation for relief for 9/11 First Responders. you should constantly remind your colleagues Sen. Schumer that all legislation can be agreed following that model. No back alley abortion deaths or death due to lack of medical insurance. Start by agreeing to fund the Children's Healthcare Insurance Program. you may have to display photos of children affected.
1
Senator Schumer -- of course we all want a new Trump-nominated Supreme Court Justice to be someone who defends America's values and culture, and who believes in "settled law", as Maine's G.O.P. Senator -- "Our Susan!" -- promises she will confirm. But why can't the entire advice and consent confirmation process for retired Justice Anthony Kennedy's seat be delayed till after the investigation into our President by the Special Counsel is made good? Trump's mini-me Mitch McConnell kept President Obama's excellent choice of Justice Merrick Garland on ice for a year, till Trump won the election. You said a mouthful, Chuck - our rights hang in the balance.
5
"But why can't the entire advice and consent confirmation process for retired Justice Anthony Kennedy's seat be delayed till after the investigation into our President by the Special Counsel is made good?"
The responsibility for selecting a SCOTUS justice is the President's. The Senate advises and consents. If you find the section that says a President has to wait and make his choice or have it acted on, for what ever arbitrary reason offered. If it's there, it's probably real close to the, "Every woman has the right to an abortion." clause.
I’m 59 and I am waiting at my oncologist’s office. I have treatable but incurable prostate cancer. I pay full price for my health insurance on the individual market since I retired after working hard for many years when the cancer came back. This Supreme Court pick could be the difference between life and death for me if they eliminate pre existing conditions protections.
5
Senator Schumer, there is only so much we can do. For us in Blue states with Democratic senators, we are singing to the choir. This is where you come in, sir. I can not speak for West Virginia or other Red states where there are Democratic senators. Nor can I speak for Alaska and Maine, although I would wager that the latter state will give Susan Collins a run for her money if she even contemplates voting against women. You and your colleagues need to put pressure on the Manchin's et al who put their power so to speak above our human rights. It is unconscionable that in the 21st Century men and women in Congress, yet alone their supporters, would allow such abuse of a woman's exclusive and moral right to her own body and mind. To the Government and Church, stay away from us, please.
6
Senator Schumer—
With all due respect, it's time for the Democrats to stop playing defensive and start playing offensive. It's not our manners or civility that's at stake here, it's our entire democracy and the future for generations to come.
This piece should cover how a president under criminal investigation WILL NOT be allowed to fill the vacant seat. This piece should be about the precedent McConnell set with Gorsuch. It goes both ways. This piece should be about how the Dems are going to OBSTRUCT the vote. Not what the effects of the vote might be. We all know that, believe me.
FIGHT, Senator Schumer. Or please pass the torch. You're right about only one thing. There is too much as stake here.
10
You are right but you are talking Winston Churchill’s language to a Neville Chamberlain party.
Michelle, as you and others are attempting to imply, precedent exists that says a sitting President has the Constitutional authority and duty to make appointments to the SC and federal courts. Bill Clinton made appointments while under criminal investigation. I bet you all know this and are merely trying to play on emotion.
This is the 21st century-no
Man should be deciding what women do with their bodies or there lives including who they live be snd marrying or what they do for work.
The most critical issue of the courts is elections-dark money; who gets to vote; and gerrymandering. Everything else flows from that.
2
Indeed, Senator. Our rights are threatened. And you're part of the reason why. The Democrat have failed to follow anything like the example set by the Republicans. They have failed to organize their base and their intelligentsia. They have failed to finance institutions and to cultivate the next two generations of judges. They've stood by diagnosing the obvious in plaintive deliberations like, this, just as Karl Rove always said they would, instead of acting.
The Right says Ready, Fire, Aim.
The Left says Ready, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim....
27
"... intelligentsia."
Not that repubs actually have an " intelligentsia." They just make stuff up to satisfy their need to dominate and force all normal Americans to follow their dogma.
1
Senator Schumer, I agree that the decision to approve or withhold approval for Trump's nominee is important and I think your statement in this newspaper is eloquent, you must realize that you are communicating with NYTIMES readers, the majority of whom agree with you. In order to convince the undecided or those is oppose the views you expressed, you must find ways to communicate and channels for communication which are understood and accessible to those who elected Trump. The Democratic Party is great at talking to itself, but terrible at communicating with and convincing the voters who matter.
15
What really hangs in the balance is the continued viability of the Democratic party. Schumer desperately reaches for fake dramatic rhetoric, such as in this article, in a struggle to remain relevant in the face of the forces of Maxine Waters and Bernie Sanders.
The country was free before Roe, and will be free if Roe is overturned. Roe has nothing to do with freedom, it simply has to do with federal courts usurping an issue which the Constitution had left to the states for close to 200 years.
8
Over half the country's population will not be free if Roe falls...women will lose their second-most important freedom, after the right to vote. Would their right to vote ultimately be in jeopardy as well?
Change the supreme court nomination process; give equal nominating power--"balancing" power--to the congress as well. Let both the president as well as the congress nominate their candidate. Hopefully, the healthy debate that follows would enable the senate to make a better decision, a better appointment.
Incidentally, why not have term limits for the supreme court justices?
( Make appropriate changes in the constitution! )
1
Senator Schumer -
If freedom is so important, then why do you do everything in your power to limit my 2nd Amendment rights. They are part of the formal, written Constitution.
I accept that privacy covers interaction between consulting adults.
I accept that a woman has the final say when the process begins, but at some point we have a second potential citizen in the mix. Be consistent.
2
"If freedom is so important, then why do you do everything in your power to limit my 2nd Amendment rights."
That has not happened. Regulating guns is part of that amendment. If you had actually read it you would know that. I suspect you are just regurgitating the talking points of your favorite right wing entertainer without actually knowing what you are talking about. Typical trumper...
What the heck is your analogy or argument here?
Are you claiming that you have the right to own any gun you want because other adults consent? Clearly that's wrong; obviously the opposition to what you consider your rights does not consent.
How did you go from "consenting adults" to "citizen?" Clearly a baby is not an adult, consenting or otherwise, duh!
And guns and abortion are a pretty hard place to find analogies in any light.
You present the most illogical argument I have ever seen in these comments. There are logical arguments you might have brought forward, but you've obliterated every one of them.
Yes, that "some point" is after the fetus is a born child. When it is dependent on and inside a viable human being, that viable human being (the mother) has full and unequivocal sovereignty over her own body.
1
This rested in the balance on November 7, 2016. That's when this battle was fought. And the Bernie left ensured that Trump won, out of their spite for Hillary Clinton. Now that same Bernie left is in hysterics over the consequences of their own actions. Well sorry, kids. Elections have consequences. The 2016 election was an election between Merrick Garland and Neil Gorsuch. The Bernie left had neither the foresight nor the intelligence to realize this.
This should be a lesson learned for the left, but it won't be. They are now doing their level best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the midterms as well, and knowing them, they will succeed.
8
Senator Schumer - I agree with your essay. But you have to get busy and convince semi-Democrats Manchi, Heitkamp and Donelly to stick with the party and vote against any nomination before the new Congress next January, at least. Then convince Collns and Murkowski to be consistent in their support for women's rights and healthcare.
But it's not just Roe v Wade.
Why did you let Trump take over our government anyway, when you knew about the Russian interference and connection to Trump for months before the inauguration and before the election.
To me the most urgent issue is that our "President" was installed after a dubious election with the aid of a hostile foreign power, he has acted guilty and obstructed justice in the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election since he was installed, since the installation, new reports have revealed collusion or conspiracy between his campaign and the Russian government which has resulted in 19 indictments including his campaign manager, deputy manager and national security advisor. There is a question to come before the courts regarding foreign emoluments, the president has proclaimed the right to pardon himself. The president is the subject of serious investigation for felonies and possible treason and cannot be allowed to pick his own judges.
11
If pre-existing conditions and women's reproductive rights are that important to Senators, they can write and pass legislation that sets the rules. They and the house are the democratically elected parties. The Supreme Court is just the umpire in all this. Roe v Wade was an unfortunate easy out; had the rules been written by legislation, there would be broader support among Americans for whatever those rules are, as there is in Europe when legislation not courts set the rules.
2
Women's reproductive rights obviously obsess third parties with all sorts of religiously-derived motivations to intervene. This is a classic situation requiring protection of minority rights, even if we are numerically a majority.
6
I’d rather have Schumer explain to how our nation’s top referees can be so partisan. How they can consider purely political cases masquerading as freedom and speech. How the courthouse depicted in the piece says “Equal Justice Under Law” when equal means “uniform in application or effect; without discrimination on any grounds.” How an appellate court can be so cavalier with facts, research and use seat of the pants reasoning that would make any serous trial court juror bursts out in laughter.
3
So much for the art of Compromise.
Why don't some of the more level headed
Senators sit down and make this deal:
Justice Ginsburg will offer to step down if
Judge Garland is appointed in her place.
President Trump will nominate a moderate conservative
for Justice Kennedy's seat.
That way liberals don't have to worry about losing
Justice Ginsburg's seat if she suddenly becomes
incapacitated - she is 85 after all - and we get two
moderate Justices on the Court.
As for rulings by the Supreme Court changing
the laws - happens all the time. If Congress would
do its duty and pass laws to reflect the changing
attitudes of Americans and not rely upon the
Courts do their work for them, we would not have
this problem.
If Roe vs Wade is returned to the States, where the
Constitution says such issues should be resolved,
then it is left to the citizens of each State to decide.
Or are you forgetting, Senator Schumer that we are
the United States of America, not the Federal Democracy.
2
should slavery be decided at the state level? Lincoln said-- one and the same country can't be half slave and half free; there were real world conflicts-- fugitive slaves be chased down by southern bounty hunters in northern free states.
are you ready for women to go to another state to terminate an early pregnancy and then be arrested upon their return for kidnapping and murder? if abortion is murder, then how can an anti abortion state give "full faith and credit" to the right to choose laws in NY or VT
this is why some issues must be settled at the Federal level or else-- dissolve the United States of America
your states-rights ideas only make sense up to a point
Lincoln saw that with slavery
No Republican, let alone Trump, would offer this deal. You are completely missing the whole show.
Lee there is no guarantee that
the Senate will confirm a "radically
conservative Justice" and if it
takes to late August to have the vote
then that leaves only September as
Congress will want to be out of Washington,
D.C. to campaign.
Trump can misplay his hand and find
himself with a Democratic Senate sooner
than he thinks.
Seems like if your rights were produced by a 5-4 vote at the Supreme Court that those rights could be easily reversed 4-5. There is a process in the constitution to establish rights not specifically identified in the Constitution. That is the amendment process to the constitution. However, it is doubtful that abortion, ACA, or gay marriage will be overturned. Workers have a right to organize just not a right to require all employees to particpate. They just do not have a right to require all workers to pay in.
1
Roe was not a 5-4 decision
AK,
It was 7 - 2,
but Justice William O. Douglas
openly admitted it was not a
Constitutional Right.
It's highly unlikely Trump will make a poor selection. Gorsuch was an excellent pick, albeit under extremely stressful circumstances for democrats because they never had the votes to push a nominee through. They don't this time either. So, yes, democrats, this is the same as Gorsuch, because, no, you don't have the votes now either.
1
The biggest problem is the leadership of the Democratic party needs replacing. When are voters going to be tired of so much failure and vote Pelosi and Schumer out of leadership positions?
6
Senator Schumer, How about moving to restore the super majority for SCOTUS appointments. Perhaps the motion won't go through, but maybe there are enough Republican Senators with a modicum of integrity left for it to pass.
In any case, such a motion might garner some votes for Democrats in the mid-term election. It's possible that it will seem reasonable to many of those Americans who aren't blindly committed to the Trump agenda that appointment to the Supreme Court should require something more than a bare majority, particular when the candidate is nominated by a president who didn't receive a majority of the popular vote.
7
agreed - and further, when a centrist judge was denied consideration by someone who was elected by and answers to a VERY small minority of voters (McConnell / Kentucky)
4
Although it will be noble for Democrats to fight this nomination, they should prepare for defeat and subsequent overturning of Roe vs Wade. While this is a horrible outcome for those of us who care about women's rights, it may work to benefit Democrats politically. Instead of the left being under assault on the issue, the right will be. Women and men who respect women in the states that ban abortion will become even more politically engaged - and will force change through the ballot box. Meanwhile, Democrats (working with Planned Parenthood) should make it as easy as possible for women and girls in abortion-denying states to learn about services in other states and to make the trip comfortably and cost-free.
Trump's choice will be a horrible one for Democrats. They should think about how to turn GOP victory into a political albatross for all Republicans.
6
How the distinguished senior senator from New York carries on...
Every judge that is currently on the court--and I have followed the appointments and confirmations of all of them when the happened--have used the dodge of adhering to the precedents set by previous courts.
They have also all politely refused to answer questions on issues that are likely to come before the court.
This way of approaching appointments to the court has even been given a name...The Goldberg Strategy...after the performance of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg during her confirmation hearing.
Note that Ginsberg received confirmation with a vote of 93 to 6 in a Senate that had 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans.
Justice, Ginsberg, one of the more liberal justices in the modern history of the court, garnered wide, bi-partisan support for her appointment in spite of her activist career as a lawyer and her proven record of support for the liberal ideology.
One has to question Senator Schumer's assault on the appointment of President Trump before the name of the candidate is actually known, and the history of consensus that a President of the United States is allowed both by Constitution and custom to name whomever he wishes to the bench, and due deference is given to that appointment because the President is, indeed, entitled to make that appointment.
So, Senator, how about some due deference for an appointee like the Republicans gave Justice Ginsberg twenty-five years ago?
5
Twenty-five years ago we had, for the most part, more moderate Republicans who could actually work across the aisle to accomplish something. Two years ago we had Mitch McConnell denying Obama's solid pick of Merrick Garland so that he could hold the seat open for a Republican if one was elected to the White House.
4
Perhaps there was a "consensus that a President of the United States is allowed both by Constitution and custom to name whomever he wishes to the bench, and due deference is given to that appointment because the President is, indeed, entitled to make that appointment." But that consensus existed only until Senator Mitch McConnell decided he was not bound by it, and that he had the authority to choose which of the president's constitutional powers last until the end of his term and which do not. Let's not forget that anti-republican act of bad faith. Nominating Judge Merrick is a fine idea (next comment) if he consents to be subjected to ill-mannered ways of the Senate a second time.
6
Trump lost by 3 million votes
Trump is under investigation and an appointee might have to rule on whether Trump can pardon himself
Trump is even now behaving in a way that benefits Putin more than the U.S.A.-- alienating allies, raising tariffs, claiming the nuclear threat from N.K. is gone when their capacity to strike is even now being augmented, not reduced;
shouldn't this nomination wait until Trump's status is clarified-- traitor, n debt to Russian oligarchs and Putin or ...?
I have a suggestion for a nominee - Merrick Garland. Republicans respect him as a thoughtful judge - one with integrity. Democrats would calm down. This hysterical atmosphere is counterproductive to the workings of democracy, which requires thoughtful discussion and a willingness to compromise. But, Trump appears to thrive on the opposite - provoking outrage by attacking the foundations of democracy. Trump supporters are not interested in government by the people, for the good of all the people. His popularity if baffling to me, as I though my fellow Americans would value honesty and kindness. This situation is not only "SAD.", it is frightening.
7
Trump will nominate his horse before he nominates Garland.
1
Senator Schumer - I suggest you invite Mitch McConnell to a open, public debate about this. Make the invite very public - put it on social media, buy ads, whatever - let the American know why this is so very important and let them people hear the reasons you both feel the nomination should wait (Trump's under investigation, it would fix a wrong regarding Merrick Garland, etc.). McConnell hasn't a leg on which to stand and the debate should make that very clear. I understand that the "base" won't budge but perhaps some independent voters will. And it's long past time for a public shaming of McConnell. Facts alone can do that; do you have the courage to do that?
20
If you can't control Joe Manchin and those like him who acquiesce to Republican appointments, and worse have signaled that they will going forward, what good are you and what good is your Party? As far as this voting New Yorker can tell, there is no Democratic opposition in the Senate outside a few progressive outliers and at least one of those is an Independent.
10
It is interesting that the only rights that Senator Schumer mentions are Democrat priorities. Roe V Wade is not ever going to be repealed. There may be more restrictions which is actually supported by Roe itself, but the basic right to abortion will always exist and I am someone who would not support it if it were up for a vote today. So, stop fearmongering the issue. The only reason the Democrats are in this position is because they first changed the filibuster rule. Once that horse was out of the stable it was only going to continue to ride. Let's just all take a breath. We will survive this.
4
On the one hand are a group of people who want the government to support their religious and moral beliefs and call this the rule of the majority; on the other are people who want the government to provide services and opportunity for all to simply live with a minimum quality of life. The latter group would like to work with the first to get this done; the first group would rather force everybody to do and think like they do because they know they have God's power. That is tyranny - and we must fight it and those who seek to shred our constitution.
16
With Republican Presidents, we have options; with Democrat nominations, we never do.
Supreme Court Justices nominated by GOP presidents bring great diversity of opinions, with some staying true to the intentions of the Founders and others exploring the limits of how big the government can be and just how modern and cool they can be as they age.
But with Justices nominated by Democrats, we generally see the sad gray uniformity of people voting as a bloc to destroy the Constitutional protections of life and liberty. All that's missing is May Day parades watched from the top of Lenin's tomb.
So with Trump's nominee we will enjoy diversity and a chance to see what REALLY lies in the heart of this woman or man once they are on the Court.
Justice Kennedy told people that once he saw that we had a GOP President and the Senate in GOP hands, he would feel comfortable in retiring.
1
You have options with Republican presidents?! Which options?
1
I don't think there is much to be done to stop it. I just hope the backlash against Republicans at the voting booth is swift and severe. Barring that, I'll be well on my way to giving up on democracy.
16
My thought concur w/Hogan's fromCO below which state the real reasons for resistance to an appointment due to the president and his team under investigation by the well-known inquiries of Mueller and his team. This is a possible violation with criminal intent, as surely all know by now. How can we the citizens pretend all is normal and let's proceed with a new justice for the Supreme Court when this same court and any decision made regarding Trump and the charges come under their purview? While I am pro-choice, anti-Citizen United, insist the issue of gerry-mandering be addressed, the activities of candidate Trump and POTUS must be investigated to the full extent of the law or what's the point of all this that we have built that represents our union, our democracy, our way of life?
7
Senator Schumer,
Thank you for sharing your opinion. Indeed, the Court can unilaterally undermine many of our civil rights laws and we should all be alarmed. But Trump’s successful nomination of a Justice presents a greater threat—the realization of absolute power for the radical conservative right. As they demonstrated repeatedly over the past 50 years, their vision of America is a twisted and cynical hall of mirrors meant to benefit only the wealthy. They would have even more power to rig elections and use the government as a weapon against their political opponents. I fear that our democracy may never recover.
I hope you realize the scope of these threats, and that you don’t underestimate your political rivals, because they will stop at nothing to get what they want.
19
This op-ed and the comments show we're still far too divisive, Democrats. It's time to be smarter and more inclusive.
1. On Roe v. Wade - Republicans have proven time and again that they vote against women. Fighting for freedom of choice because it's a woman's right is not going to help. We need to talk about the girls' and boys', women's and men's, and families' lives that get destroyed when abortion is not an option, and the lowest income tranche of our population explodes. We need to spotlight abortions that girlfriends of Republican Congressmen and POTUS have had. If they demand to come in to our bedrooms, it's time to go into theirs.
2. On the ACA - it's not perfect. A lot of premiums went up, and a lot of hospital stays got shorter. Expanding Medicare is the long-term goal, but ACA will help to fill the gap until we get there. Explain that.
3. On inclusiveness - Democrats must recognize that WE are the party of Lamb and WE are the party of Ocasio-Cortez. A Trump can run for office any time. Democrats must show up to vote to keep Trump out of office-THAT'S the responsibility of democracy. Irresponsible voters who stayed home or voted Green gave us at least two alt-right Supreme Court justices and 100 alt-right federal judges who will upend civil rights and our democracy for gegenerations.
Fight hard for your candidate in the primaries but get behind Democratic candidates in the general election.
Every single Democrat is better than handing Trump another majority.
17
I can't believe you claimed Ocasio-Cortez when you counsel the opposite of what she stands for, which is clear policies for working and middle class New Yorkers (and all Americans) distinct from the centrism and incrementalism that has ruled the Democratic Party for decades. The ACA is a prime example.
1
Your bullet point 1. is very well taken. 2/3 of Americans support abortion rules per Roe v Wade, but the active campaigners (including unfortunately Planned Parenthood) miss the points you make, keeping the debate divisive and missing the support of the majority in the middle.
1
Perhaps next time the Democrats should nominate a competent and likable Presidential candidate who isn't allergic to campaigning in Great Lakes states.
As others have pointed out, it's 2018 and Clintonistas are STILL blaming voters, who in some cases, were NEVER Democrats. And you can't assume that Clinton should have gotten all the Stein voters without also assuming that Trump would have gotten all the Johnson voters.
1
Mr. Schumer, beyond all the reasons you state, there is another reason for resistance: The president and his associates are currently under investigation for possible violations of criminal law. This investigation may well push into previously uncharted constitutional territory, in which the Supreme Court would be called upon to provide the map.
No new justice should be confirmed until Special Counsel Mueller completes his investigation. If this is not an option, every Democratic Senator should ask the prospective justice, as their first question: "Do you swear that you will recuse yourself from any proceeding involving the Special Counsel or his authority to complete his investigation of the president, due to the conflict of interest arising from his nominating you?" If that person cannot answer this question with a yes, that should be an automatic disqualification.
We are innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn't mean we get to appoint the judge who may be deciding whether or not we go to trial. Nor should that be allowed in this case. The new justice may get confirmed anyway even without Democratic votes, but if there's a hill upon which to die, this is the one.
22
When Social Security was established, luckily there were no cynical pols like Senator Schumer around calling instead for "affordable pensions." With Trump in office it means that Senator Schumer can sit back and do nothing hoping to profit from Trump outrage. Then, when his party gets back in, they will point to partisan gridlock. New York finally gets its senior Senator in congressional leadership, and it had to be this guy.
9
Schumer is correct. Roe V Wade, coverage for preexisting conditions, gay marriage and other rights will be overturned with a right wing justice replacing Kennedy. This will go on for decades, even if the Democrats control the executive branch and the house/senate. The latest ruling, using the first amendment and saying that mandatory union dues denies free speech to federal workers weakens unions and eventually hurts wages and benefits for the middle class. That was supposed to be "settled" law, but now apparently anything can be overturned by the new right wing supreme court majority.
7
Where, Ib, in the court's ruling do they "...(deny) free speech to federal workers....?
The ruling does no such thing.
What it does is deny the unions the right to force someone to pay for their activities WITHOUT their consent. The unions are free to express their views in any legal means available to them. The fact that they may no longer carry the clout that they once did has nothing to do with their right to speak their minds.
If anything, that ruling begins to restrict one of the most insidious elements of money in our politics...the ability of the unions to determine by labor action just how much The People will pay in taxes by their support of politicians that are willing to give in to union demands.
I think that progress is being made.
1
Dear Senator Schumer your view regarding President Trump choice for the Supreme Court is unjustified. If I were you, I’d be more concerned about the legislation that you produce as an example the affordable healthcare act was a bomb that was sure to fail and you knew it. That’s just one example of the many pieces of legislation that you’ve tried to push through over the years that was flawed from the beginning. So, if I were you I would start trying to get along with Republicans and make meaningful legislation. And remember that President Trump will choose two more supreme court justices besides the Anthony vacancy.
8
He cannot get along with Republicans who support a president who has encouraged violence in his rallies, suggested that someone knock off or jail his political opponents and has bragged about assaulting women. May I suggest that you move to a part of the country that matches your views, because you sure don't have the right to claim the title of New Yorker, if you think Chuck Schumer needs to get along with the Republicans.
When Schumer writes that "we should all want a more representative process for choosing the next Supreme Court justice" I wonder what world he's living in.
The Democrats lost. They don't have the votes to stop a Trump pick. As with Gorsuch it's likely that there will be Democrats who vote for the nominee, whomever it might be.
It sounds as if the Senator is implying that Trump should never get to pick a nominee, unless it's a " moderate consensus" nominee. Sotomayor and Ginsburg were not moderate nominees. And I don't think anyone would argue that they've been moderate justices.
Win the Senate back and then you can be just as hardheaded as McConnell is. Until then though, talk is cheap. Elections do have consequences.
11
Yes, elections do have consequences...and unfortunately, we have to live with DJT until he is either impeached or he loses his re-election should he decide to run for a 2nd term.
I find his ties to Putin and Russia to be disturbing. He's been very respectful when dealing with Putin and disrespectful when dealing with our traditional allies...I don't trust Trump. To me, he's a selfish, mean-spirited individual who has no compassion other than for his own feelings...And when his feelings are hurt, he's vindictive rather than trying to understand where other people's criticisms of him come from. He's a reactive and irresponsible individual who is probably still living in his adolescent past.
1
The GOP's thrust against Obamacare since 2009 has made it worse than it would have been initially and since by chipping away here and there, which has increased premiums and helped push some insurance companies off the exchanges, giving less choice. Further erosion will put insurance out of reach for those with pre-existing conditions. The GOP thrust has been about getting rid of anything 'Obama' but not big on a detailed replacement plan or smooth transition - trying to turn back the clock will be very messy and disruptive, which alone will send (has sent) premiums up and exchange choice down.
That said, calling it affordable is ridiculous, especially more recently - insurance premiums are too high for many, certainly higher than before even beyond inflation, and the provider/pharma side cost is outrageous.
We need something sensible and neither the past nor Obamacare were it, neither the GOP nor the dems are providing a sensible healthcare setup and a plan to get there smoothly for all parties involved. The issue is not whether it is single payer or multi-payer - there are setups of both in developed countries that work much better (cost and results) than here. The issue is getting rid of the politics and hype and crafting good legislation for the benefit of Americans.
5
No, the PPACA was such a mishmash that it was destined to fail from Day One. What Democrats told each other over & over was that it should last long enough for a progressive president to bring in national health care financed straight off the Treasury.
The fact that Mr. Obama had to try and fix it fifty times - without running any of it through Congress - should tell you all you needed to know.
The fact that wannabe senator John Roberts had to rewrite part of it to make it fit the Constitution should have told you even more.
The Federalist Society represents about five percent of American lawyers. How is it then, that six of nine supreme court justices will hail from that arch-conservative society?
Moreover, Republicans reflexively claim they want a "strict constructionist" on the court. That term is meaningless and less than representative of the profession, so it would be appropriate for the media to follow up.
Instead, we get a blur of textualism, originalism and nonsense when asked about the qualities the right wants on the court. The only thing that is constant is, the justice supports big money in politics.
9
One more argument that Schumer et al. fail, with their lack of imagination, to point out:
The push by the Federalist Society for strict constructionists and originalism suggests an idealistic reading of the Constitution when slavery was legal and enslaved people were counted as 3/5 a human being, taxes were appropriated accordingly, and women, workers, and children had no legal representation or rights.
Yet one more way to "Make American Great" again, and ensure that the rich shall inherit the earth.
4
Let me ask, Occupy, why lawyers of the Jewish faith on the court, a whopping 30% when the Jewish population of the United States is only 2.24%*.
The logical extension of your argument is that their views are over-represented.
Your argument is about as much hogwash as the local extension of that argument that I noted.
As for money in politics...I would have to assume that you are in favor of the Court's ruling against mandatory union dues as it has the chance of taking a lot of money away from one of the biggest money players in the political game.
Except Owl... i didn't think of it. You did.
As for union influence in politics, can you point to some?
The hard right packed court is the anti-thesis of where most of the country is...and it's not JUST about Roe v Wade, and the ACA. The destruction of voting rights, the maintaining of gerrymandered districts by race or party, the damage to public unions that just happened, the improbability of getting rid of the incredibly damaging Citizen United big money politics that we've been saddled with and divided by since it's decision, further backing for environmentally damaging policies in favor of business profit, possible end to overtime rules, gay rights in marriage and discrimination by businesses, reversals to desegregation and diversity. While the country tries to move forward we will be saddled with a court trying to drag us back to the mid 20th century.
14
The whole principle of the Supreme Court is to keep the nation rooted in the cultural and legal consensus of the past. It keeps the nation from moving in directions that lack sound legal footing and lacking in true political consensus amongst The People.
2
Thus we are to never move beyond the intentions of the 18th century? Meanings change with even just the technology, not just the cultural or legal. They may keep us from moving too fast, but to revert to what we now see as "sins" of the past would be a horrible blow to how this country evolves into the nation we want to live in.
since businesses already discriminated against people that are not Democrats, your point is mute. And with Democrats openly calling for harrassment of the other side,I say your side already decided that issue out side the courts.
Abortion rights may be the banner waving reason to get people invigorated but I do wish the Democratic party would choose to focus on more than just abortion rights. I am pro choice but this appointment of the next supreme court justice is not only an abortion rights issue. The larger issue is whether a president under investigation for colluding/ collaborating/ supporting a hostile government should be allowed to appoint another SC Justice. Choosing to focus on just one issue allows the qualification of the nominating president to escape without questioning.
10
It’s a lot more than the next Supreme Court Justice pick.
And how a republican court would rule on any matter of law.
And what Congressional rule should be changed for the moment.
And whether the Court thinks any particular White House executive order is constitutional.
It’s about economic and social justice.
And how a republican Congress can pass laws that move the modest wealth of wage earners in the ninety percent over to wealthy investors in the ten percent.
The problem is that our country is ruled by a republican party, with their professed policy to do the bidding of their owners. Such as lowering taxes to justify killing Medicare and Social Security.
While increasing our national deficit, burdening everyone just trying to earn a living wage.
The solution is not to ask Congress and the President to throw a punch at their opposition or to step aside.
Rather, voters need to vote the republicans out of the Congress and out of the White House so we can enact laws that protect all of us from ever having to face decisions by a deeply biased Supreme Court.
6
Really? its your side that made the court biased. You upset that the court will now tie the line on the constitution instead of pushing your agenda thru courts.
I would just like to remind Ed C Man that it was the great Democrat, Harry Reid, who first pressed the nuclear button on federal judicial appointments. McConnell, at that time, told Reid he would regret his actions. I, personally, am thrilled that Harry proceeded.
How interesting that we have gone from the GOP having to do an "autopsy" on their ailing party to discussing how powerless the Democrats are in just a few short years.
Once it was thought that demographics and a national swing leftward would spell the end of the GOP.
Then came Trump.
9
A president under investigation for federal election law tampering and obstruction of justice should not name a Supreme Court Justice who might rule on elements of his case.
With elections just 4 months away, and the results of the Special Prosecutor’s case forthcoming, reason dictates waiting until one or both events take place before confirming a new Supreme Court Justice.
The United States has flourished as a land of law and democracy.
There is no urgent rush to fill the role, as Republicans made the case that the Supreme Court position left open by Justice Scalia could remain open for over 9 months or longer.
Having set this precedent, they must live by it.
To do otherwise creates a lawless regime much like the dictatorships Trump so admirers- and this Congress will fail to forestall the demise of this free republic that over a million soldiers gave their lives to protect and defend.
This is the moment those of great character can step forward to ensure a more deliberate process for such an important decision.
13
The media has it wrong. They are trying to suggest the "democrats" do not have the power to stop these attacks on OUR United States Supreme Court. Democrats are just elected officials. WE THE PEOPLE are the ones who have the power.
WE THE PEOPLE must pledge to not vote for any elected official who votes for any of The Con Don's nominees for OUR United States Supreme Court. They are actually the Koch brother and friends nominees.
WE will not let a few demented, inherited-wealth, socially unconscious men and women decide what women do with their own bodies and lives. WE will not let them decide who can vote, who can join forces to create better working conditions, who controls OUR legal system, who gets to not pay taxes.
NOW is the time to fight like hell to preserve/restore true democracy in OUR United States of America - social and economic equity for all.
Now may be the only time for centuries.
8
That's right. We should delegitimize the vote of the other 48% of the people. They voted for Trump fully knowing what it entailed
we the people stopped you. we the people are not done with outing Democrats and establishment politicians that do nothing until it's time to get re elected.
1
I don't know what Susan Collins Lisa Murkowski and John McCain are thinking but seems to me they will decide who will be the next Supreme Court judge. Trump can't get it done without their votes so a proven very conservative nominee in the Scalia Thomas mode seems unlikely. Someone with a similar track record to Justice Gorsuch would be my guess as the first choice Trump puts forward.
2
Gorsuch is to the right of Scalia/Thomas, and he wishes to mirror Gorsuch. They're going for broke, no doubt
The judiciary has been on a track to complete politicization for years, and now Trump is deliberately selecting an activist judge to do his bidding. Of course, for some time Republicans have expect conservative judges to follow their political line. Take Limbaugh's comment when Chief Justice Roberts voted for Obamacare that judges must vote a political line. A politicized judiciary pushes the United States closer to one party rule. Judges need be selected on the basis of their impartiality, not their political bias. Otherwise, the statue of justice on the dome of the Capital might as well be taken down and replaced by one of Trump.
9
Ok except the justices Obama appointed were certainly not free of liberal political bias.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
1
"But as we have seen in many decisions, including the Janus ruling this past week, settled law is only settled until a majority of the Supreme Court decides it is not."
Right you are Senator. Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, et al. were all "settled law" until "a majority of the Supreme Court decides it is not."
What's your point?
4
I have an abiding respect for you Mr. Schumer, and I agree with your suggested outcomes of a Trump pick. Yet what I need, and what many of us need right now, because we are sitting in darkness, is a fiery statement of policy; please rev up my engine and help remove us from this darkness.
The Republicans have successfully out-maneuvered your party - so let's fight like we have never fought before. Take a lesson from Mitch - and be an opposition leader with clever strategies. If you can't do it, then find someone who can.
20
Very much agree with Jackie on this... Dem Leadership needs a message and NOW! I would love to see a new face of the Democratic leadership with Pelosi stepping down. She has done good work but it is beyond time for a new message and new face of the party.
8
Then why are you and Nancy Pelosi pouring water on a already flickering flame talking about "civility"?
These are not constitutionally guaranteed rights. They extremely clearly fall within the 10th Amendment's clause giving them to the states "respectively". Even if the Supreme Court held that, a woman could still get an abortion legally. Due to another clause in the Constitution, a state can't ban somebody from going to a state where it's legal. Most states
would still have it legal. And due to the 1st Amendment the states can't ban services that offer advice only on how to do that, though they probably can ban ones that take state funds from doing that.
Left wingers: why not just to the very obvious legal thing:
get Congress to vote on a constitutional amendment
that clarifies these issues once and for all? What do you have
against the Constitutinally mandated methods? Could it be that you are sure that "the people" and their elected representatives don't have the votes to get that Amendment approved? (That of course is a rhetorical question, the votes are simply not there).
6
I haven't seen any catastrophic Supreme Court decisions. Citizen United? J Bush and H Clinton spent much more than Trump. Turning back Roe vs Wade will lose a lot of votes. Women's votes. Gore wasn't the first president elected by the Supreme court. Obama care stood by a court decision. A Clinton appointee stopped the California law suits against big oil. The courts generally do their job and you're not going to agree with every decision. So what shoud be up to the legislature to figure things out.
What you're really frightened of is being wrong and not having the power you think you should have. A Supreme Court approved by the Green Party or Socialist is not what where we're heading.
Lowering the price of Medical care is what we need. If it takes the form of forcing medical insurance on people who can't afford it with thirty thousand deductibles. No.
Come on Chuck. No more coverage for pre-existing conditions. What you doing about it?
8
So, you have a pre existing condition you don’t get insurance? People with life threatening illnesses are left to 1) exhaust their saving and go bankrupt and 2) just die already.
That is an evil viewpoint. I don’t often wish people evil, but I’d like to see you have to deal with a preexisting condition with no insurance to cover it. Then I wonder what you’d be writing here. I’m sure it would be different.
Finally, risk pools (statistics must not have been your strong subject in school) are the best way to handle this. Everyone pays a little as “insurance” (get it) so that their preexisting condition is covered. Why is this so hard for people like you to understand?
1
Democrats keep arriving at national fires, after most of the structures have burned to the ground. Your proposed remedy makes sense, but it is not going to prevent similar future blazes. For that, Dems need to win elections. And to win, Dems must champion policies to support labor, not capital. In the 50’s, one income supported a family. Now, two are not enough. The fault here lies with my party, because Democrats were supposed to champion labor, but they signed onto neoliberalism, helping corporations and financiers. It is good that Dems hate injustices, but let’s hate most those injustices inflicted by runaway laissez faire economics. These are the root cause of conditions giving rise to Trump in the first place and the key to Dems winning and to sound political fire prevention, going forward.
10
It's not just a matter of championing policies. There's a saying, don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Well, the Democrats, and in particular Obama, got into the habit of bringing roses to a knife fight. The Republicans fight dirty. What are you going to do about it? Cry and whine and complain and stomp your feet on the ground? Time to get into the ring Senator and fight with everything you guys have. Don't ask us to call our Senators. Show us that you have the guts and the stomach to fight as dirty as they do. Then maybe we'll take up your cause. I for one am sick to death of the nice Democrats standing by while the Republicans stick it to them again and again. Time to man up. And yes, that phrase is politically incorrect, but I don't care.
1
Maybe wait and see who it is first? Don’t forget that Anthony Kennedy was a Reagan appointee. Judges are individuals and they sometimes surprise. It’s actually happened quite a lot.
And yes - elections have consequences. Obama’s two appointments to the SC were sub par and highly partisan. It can’t be worse than that.
6
Democrats lose because they believe in good government. McConnell doesn't. He has been, and will continue to stack the judiciary with like-minded jurists.
Democrats simply need to win the presidency and control the Senate. Then add the jurists they like. Nine supreme court justices? Make it 11 or 13.
Problem is, chuck summer is too cowardly to do it, let alone threaten it.
5
Mr. Shumer, let us energize the democratic party before the mid-terms. You and Nancy Pelosi should step down and allow fresh leadership. Both of you failed the party. Thanks for your service...now it is time to move on.
6
We continue to focus on symptoms, like the Supreme Court vote, which, while important, is but a surrogate for larger questions of national values and individual character!
We have strayed woefully from values that made this nation what it once was. Rather than leadership with a focus on drawing socially and politically disparate elements together, they instead focus on advantage, lies and disruption: short-term behaviors of disengenuous and mentally unstable personalities!
Power and influence are far more important to moribund political leaders than information, education, guidance and real caring for our ailing democracy.
It is disgraceful, but until and unless the electorate wakes up to how they are being misled, duped and laughed at by these obsessively ideological and cynical “leaders” we will play the course to even worse symptoms than the potential of a Supreme Courst judge to the right of Atilla the Hun!
Our best hope are more women and miniorities in the game!
2
But 53 percent of white women voted for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. Gender alone guarantees nothing.
1
"If you do not want a Supreme Court Justice who will overturn Roe v. Wade and undo the Affordable Care Act, tell your senators they should not vote for a candidate from Mr. Trump’s preordained list."
Spoken very dryly, legally, logically, without passion by our Democrat leader, whose cats are all over the place and are not being herded.
5
oh, yes, me telling senator roy blunt here in missouri to not vote for trump"s supreme court pick will surely do the trick. the man takes 4 AA batteries to move
No Chuck. You need to tell your senators like Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Manchin, and Claire McCaskill who are running for re-election in a,state Trump carried not to vote for any anti-abortion nominee. And, after that all you need to do is get one more Republican like Lisa Murkowski, Bob Corner, Jeff Flake, or John McCain to join Susan Collins to save a "women's right to choose" and maintain control over her body. You know all these people and this is THE test of your leadership both over your own caucus, but in the Senate itself. I voted for you; now earn it.
34
You think he's not aware of all of this?
Elections matter, remember ? Go out there and win some elections, then get back to us, in the meantime, we're busy Making America Great Again.
Oh, it's going to be a long, long eight years for some of you folks.
5
Staying in character, Trump will nominate Roy Moore. No doubt about it.
3
It’s remarkable that a man who has supported a woman’s freedom to choose an abortion his whole life is willing to put at risk that right for political reasons, and as remarkable that people voted for such a man.
Then again, like a demented boy-king, Trump may well be relishing the idea of wielding such power and satisfying his narcissism without thought of the effect it would have on poor women at their most vulnerable time.
2
Stop the lectures, Chuck. You're preaching to the choir. You can stop by standing around in the well of the Senate with your hand on the shoulder of the traitorous "Bourbon Mitch" McConnell. We didn't think of "compromise" when I was in the military, we fought.
6
So many of the people who die early from the lack of adequate health care and opioid addiction are Trump supporters who have less chance of surviving unless they can find treatment that is only supplied through federal Programs such as Medicaid and the ACA. But it seems none of this matters when trigger point issues such as abortion and gun rights are mentioned. Freedom to live longer lives is trumped by the right to own unlimited uncontrolled numbers and quality of guns and the demand that every pregnant person carries a child to term.
And yet a paradox exists here as gun ownership often shortens their lives due to accidents and suicide due to the availability of guns. It is also true that those states where abortion is most limited will have more births among Hispanics, blacks, poor white women and the poor in general putting more financial stress on poorer states.
Right now the Federal government funnels more money into red states than blue and if red states continue their trends this gap will continue to grow.
But cause and effect matter little here as Trump supporters have their knee jerk issues and will cheer as Justices whose decisions will hurt them most support the Trump carnival show.
In this a paradox exists
1
This is not time for business as usual. Get rid of the old speeches and playbook. Get tough and focused like a tack.
Sen Schumer- why aren't you focusing and speaking on the fact that Trump is under multiple investigations including one that amounts to treason? Why aren't you calling Trump out as the Liar in Chief since he lies all the time? He is a threat to our liberties. "Lock him Up"- why not language that clear which worked for Republicans. Paint him as he is.
Stop giving him deference because of the office- focus on the man, his words and acts. Get Tough- Fight strategically like a Republican - talk to the public in simple clear messages that resonate. Stop reacting and take charge of the messaging.
Democracy is literally on the line.
10
Senator Schumer needs to start acting like a real New Yorker!! Get tough and fight strategically to win.
Merrick Garland's seat was stolen and nothing was done. It's payback time, Mr. Schumer: I say the Senate democrats should prevent any vote until after the mid-term elections. Or, better yet, after the next presidential election! Tit for tat.
1
It was not "stolen" because NOBODY is ever guaranteed a seat on the court.
Was BORK'S seat "stolen"?
1
We understand that, Mr. Schumer.
We also understand that you and the Dems are our last defense. So speeches and soft talk don't cut it right now.
Act like you are in charge and fight. At least history will show you tried instead of cowering, as it currently appears.
Out here, we can get out the vote in Nov. Until then, our rights are in your hands.
20
When Obama was POTUS I heard the wailing from the right now that Trump is POTUS I get the wailing from the left. Mr. Schumer the Democrats lost the election because the party nominated a person who had clearly violated the law and got a pass. It stunk. This diversion of getting 3 million more votes is hogwash. Is Trump a bully? Yes. Does he talk and act like the other POTUS? No. In most part because he's not a politician like you Mr. Schumer. Who ever Trump nominates will get approved. And I think that the Chief justice won't allow the court to get any where near Roe v. Wade. If you have a different point of view then let's hear it but if it's "Anyone but Trump". That won't work.
8
I'm with you, Chuck. Resist. And also, what CAN we do to help?
What's the plan! OK, "leadership" allowed Stein, Sanders. the Russians and "not-voting" to steal the election. Now the US leader is alienating allies, wrecking the economy, embracing dictators and known enemies, and attacking every part of the rules and the safety net needed to live a decent life. Your column here is stating the obvious while offering only the ridiculous idea of calling your senator. Ha! What a bunch! Is there a single senator who understands the power and use of the internet? Is there a single senator who is ready to step out and play a serious game of chess in politics and power? I mean, whining is not a winning strategy. It just isn't!
5
Dear Chuck,
Rather than dump this responsibility to those outside of Washington, why don't you step up to the plate and do your job. You're the leader of the opposition party, behave like it. Change your demur ways, get your hands dirty, and fight - hard. Use all the Senate rules to stop all business until you get what you want. Make the Senate an uncomfortable place for the other side, and the voters. That's what opposition leaders are supposed to do.
41
He's not dumping responsibility in the least. He's asking for a show of vocal support. Democratic (small 'd') leaders believe that the best politics is done with the pronounced support of those they represent. You're being petty. If you believe that Schmer isn't going to be fighting this you're deluded.
Thank you for your service Senator but you and Nancy need to resign for more effective leadership.
6
Chuck, you really need to stand up more and be a leader and try to get your team together on the issues, and stand a bit more strongly against this dictator. People need strong leaders now and I have to say up to this point, you don't seem to be the man for the job, in my personal opinion.
2
Elections have consequents....It is more important to win elections at this point. Galvanize democracies and independences to vote in their interest and point out what is being done to them and their children's future. Do what you can to emphases the future risk but don't sacrifice taking back leadership of Congress in 2018.
1
Affordable health care WILL be endangered?
What color is the sky in your world??? Americans are CURRENTLY spending 40-60% (!) more per capita than almost any other advanced democracy! (We're only wasting 20% more than the Swiss. Woo Hoo!)
The dirty tricks of †he Trumpian opposition led by Mitch McConnell gave us Neil Gorsuch instead of Obama's nomination Merrick Garland.
Let us pull the same dirty tricks on these folks and refuse to approve Trump's choices until after the midterms if it can't be helped. And I hope we don't have to do that even after the midterms.
Enough is enough!
1
Slavery was once legal in the US. It got fixed by the Supreme Court. Can anyone today explain the politics of each Justice at that time?
4
"It got fixed by the Supreme Court."
Um, no.
It was "fixed" by a Civil War and Constitutional amendments.
Not the Supreme Court.
You must be joking. Slavery sure did not get "fixed by the Supreme Court."
That court, headed by Taney, gave us the Dred Scott decision and also pronounced the Missouri compromise illegal. Many believe that these decisions of Taney's triggered the Civil War, though pressures were many.
The Civil War ended slavery, and ushered in the Jim Crow era. The Supreme Court endorsed that with the Civil Rights cases of 1883, Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and Cumming v. Richmond (1899).
The US Supreme court did nothing reduce slavery or racial discrimination until Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954).
Another luke warm, mediocre rallying piece from Chuck Schumer. This is not strong leadership, but instead just another in a long series of expressing only what he has to, as not to look like he is totally asleep.
18
Where’s the energy? Where’s the urgency? Where’s the fight? Reading your op-Ed is about as exciting as reading a recipe, for God’s sake! Fight harder, like the Republicans, frankly, or they will continue to eat us alive! YOU have the power - so stop politely disagreeing! Just do it or get out of the way!
3
Our rights DO hang in the balance. Democrats/lefties have come after free speech, freedom of association, freedom of self-defense, religious freedom and the freedom to retain the fruit of one's labor. Will Schumer stand up for those? Will any Democrat?
8
Such nonsense. We have a republican president who decrys free speach, opposes the right of assembly, rejects freedom if religion, campaigns against freedom of the press and the 14th amendment, and you criticize democrats. Such hypocrisy. Look in a mirror!
No -- all Schumer cares about are illegal aliens from foreign nations. He hates Americans, especially the white working class.
1
Where is your anger, your passion, Senator Schumer? DO SOMETHING! Lead from your heart for a change instead of advising us to be polite to our opponents. Otherwise, get out of the way for new leadership. Thus far, you have only managed to demonstrate and encourage the impotency of Senate Democrats.
6
Senator, if your cared for our Nation and the Democratic part and our future - which you do - then do 3 things:
First, you and Ms. Pelosi voluntarily step aside as mouthpieces of the Party;
2. get interested in why, in Alabama and Louisiana and North Carolina, there are two Democratic governors and one Democratic Senator. How about finding out how they won in three hostile states to Democrats.
3. You cannot win elections by the geographical bookends any more. And, finally, move the DNC HQ to Texas.
Be a Statesman. Find someone from the center of the Nation as head of the minority party. In the House and in the Senate.
Step aside.
8
I live in what many would consider a conservative area of the country....a VERY conservative area of the country. But even here, most folks by and large have come to accept a FORTY year old Supreme Court decision. Even more shocking to the average, sheltered NYT reader....many folks around here are willing to give Mr. Schumer his due,,,he has an ability to offer a well thought out opinion,,even if he's wrong. In this opinion piece, I would argue that Mr. Schumer is NOT offering anything well thought out nor is he doing his country a good service.....Instead he's attempting to push a narrow, short-sighted propaganda piece designed to accomplish nothing except grab more power for his DNC,Inc corporate masters..........
First off.....Supreme Court Judges need to think for themselves, we expect them to have experience judging the merits of complicated legal issues. We do NOT want judges who are compliant pawns of someone else;s narrow political agenda. So far, all the so-called "conservative" judges, with actual judge experience have demonstrated this ability....ie....they do not cling to an ideology as Mr. Schumer claims they do. I suggest that Mr. Schumer calm down and consider what is best for USA in the 21st Century, and not obsess over the defense of a 40 year old ruling that has only seen half-hearted resistance. Please Mr. Schumer, do NOT attempt to foist another political lacky on the Supreme Court.
6
Unlike Bader Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan who are all partisan beyond belief. Sotomayor wouldn't be on the Supreme Court at all in any normal world. Her absurd written dissent to the Janus case showed how unhinged the left can be. That case was completely about free speech - and the understanding that all interactions with public sector unions and elected officials are necessarily political. Who gets to bribe their boss with contributions and then negotiate better pay and benefits with the same people? Making that case about labor rights was ridiculous.
Sen. Schumer, you and the Democrats must do everything possible to keep another of Donald's nominees from sitting on the SCOTUS! Use the "McConnell Rule " ....have ads on every TV station, informing Americans about what is at stake!
Most of all, Democrats must take their gloves off and fifth like never before for our Nation! Not only our freedoms, but our democracy depends on a few strong patriots! Talk to Jeff Flake, Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins make sure they will side with you in blocking Donald's nominee.
Also, Democrats must make TV ads of Donald lying, show him lying and then give Americans the TRUTH!
Fight, sir, with all of your colleagues for the sake of our country!
Senator Schumer,
For the women in this country, this is beyond the gravity of probably overturning "Roe Vs. Wade" and the right to an abortion.
This is about a man who presides as president of our country who does NOT respect women and their need or right & ready access to basic health care. For him, women are chattel and/or objects to mirror his perverse sense of self-ego and success.
On a Party note, Mr. Schumer, I implore you to manage your party wisely towards a responsible, compassionate yet common sense direction. You remember . . . the Democratic Party before the greasy triangulation strategies, the Wall Street connections and silly "identity politics".
Common sense. Fairness. Sensible compassion.
The Democratic Party urgently MUST see the forest through the trees. You must NOT leave moderate independent voters and Sanders supporters on the table.
Your counterpart in the House, Nancy Pelosi, refuses to get it. This is about whether our country remains a viable democratic republic by 2024 . . . or becomes a fascist capitalist state -- effectively, a version of Russia and Putin.
Once a certain momentum is attained and power is continued to be consolidated by Trump, it will become impossible to correct WITHOUT widespread violent protests. And violence only begets more violence, hatred and divisiveness. Bring many into the tent . . . iron out the differences later. This is about the welfare of our Union.
1
Shoulda written this before the election, Chuck. Irrelevant now. They won. Take back both houses of Congress and write better laws. Stop focusing on weekend photo-op speeches about trivial matters and get cracking.
3
Can someone tell this phony that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, the states will still perform abortions. It’s just not a constitutional right. That’s a bogus fiction. Same with gay marriage.
If Obamacare is overturned, people won’t die. We survived as a nation for 243 years prior to Obamacare. We don’t need or want Obamacare.
Crying Chuck is hemorrhaging Dem voters. His party is finished. He’s finished.
2
How pathetic, a United States Senator in a seat of power telling the poor unwashed what we already know, and asking us to communicate our wishes to his colleagues.
He does not, though, tell us about Harry Reid's mistake, with "Chuck" cheering him on, using the nuclear option. How about Schumer's own mistake trying, with no success, to filibuster the Gorsuch nomination and opening the door to a simple majority vote for Supreme Court justice.
Sen. Schumer, I think of you every time a noisy aircraft disturbs our once quiet New York community. You made that happen too.
We speak often of the inadequate House Democratic leadership suffering from advanced age. The Senate Democratic leadership has no such excuse.
14
Sorry, but you and Pelosi need to go. Thanks for your service, now go. Let a younger generation fight for a nation that is being systematically destroyed by your own lack of courage to fight back with passion. Go have lunch with Amy.
25
Mixilplix -- I'd be more sympathetic to you and your generation of you did ... you know ... what you actually need to do, to win. Vote. Win it by voting, not by howling like a small child who threw their cereal off the high-chair tray and is now in a rage at not having what they want.
You want to get rid of Pelosi and Schumer? Primary them. in their electoral districts; California and New York.
Win those elections -- and they are gone. Can't be bothered to do that, can't be bothered to vote?
You lose.
Our "senator" in eastern Pennsylvania, Wall Street's Pat Toomey, has been a shill for corporations since he got into politics. The main architect of the tax bill, there is no chance Toomey will do anything but kowtow to Trump, and to his Heritage and Federalist buddies. I'll be glad to write to this clown, but I already know what his vote will be. For these criminals who hate women, people of color, and equal rights, national health, "the fix is already in."
2
Chuck, please tell us why you supported the absolutely pointless and doomed-to-fail filibuster against Gorsuch? That mindless action lead inevitably to the rules change that left your party powerless to stop or even influence Trump’s future SCOTUS nominee(s). You had to know this day was coming and now your chickens have come home to roost.
8
Not to mention how utterly pointless it was. If the Democrats hadn’t done that they would have had more leverage now. Oops.
1
Republicans always play dirty and distort the facts, Sen. Schumer, now’s not the time for Democrats to continue to respond by being doormats. It’s not just the upcoming midterms that’s reason for the ethically challenged Trump not to select a SCOTUS appointee, but also the man is under criminal investigation and should not choose a Justice that’ll likely hear his case. We don’t let rapists pick their judges, neither should Donald Trump. We must not let the rule of law to continue to be mocked by Trump. Wait until Jan 2019 for a pick, which is not too much to ask.Afterall. Republicans vowed not to let Hillary Clinton pick a nominee for four years, Stand tall for American, and show you and your fellow Democrats have a spine.
2
Blah, blah, blah Chuck - got your own list of candidates you want to share? Got your 5 top traits the next candidate must have? Can’t stand the Republicans but seems like you and the Dems are always complaining from the sidelines rather than making a difference on the field
2
If the Senator really thought this through he would realize that Roe v. Wade has resulted in a disproportionate amount of aborted pregnancies among minorities.
These folks are the Democrat base of support. Imagine if even half of these children were born alive in the past 40 years. There’s the difference in most elections.
Instead, the Democrats want to legalize illegal immigrants to make up the difference.
9
Tuco...thats the most twisted reasoning Ive heard in some time. So IF those minority babes had been born we'd have a Democratic House, Senate and WH?
Also, you lack knowledge on who - as in race and class- most use abortion services. Relying once again on the tired GOP racial cliche of minorities abuse it. I suggest you look it up yourself.
The differences in most elections is now about gerrymandering, and access. Which does affect the poor and minorities voting.
1
Source?
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cdc-statistics-indicate-abortion-rate-...
Abortion is fine by me. However, many religions people believe that abortion amounts to murder.
Perhaps, "States' Rights" might be a better solution to this problem. There's no way that "New York City types" could ever have the same or similar morals as country people.
Unfortunately, too many Americans have the mental sickness of being "binary-thinkers". It's my way or the highway. This sickness even affects Über-Elites who graduated from one of the top-three Ivy schools: Yale, Princeton and Harvard. [Joke]
1
Charles Schumer: Our rights hang in the balance ?
Is this a line from an X-Files script ?
The same Charles Schumer is an avid supporter of the forced seizing of citizens homes so that cities can raise their tax base (Kelo vs. City of New London).
Oh, but that's OK because the collective good is more important than individual rights, and Schumer is a collectivist and a statist.
And his choices for Supreme Court have, and can be assured to continue to, run roughshod over your rights with most of their decisions.
His hypocrisy knows no bounds.
3
If Chuck Schumer so deeply cared about American civil liberties, he could start by withdrawing his outrageous support for the Israel Anti Boycott Act which is flagrant violation of first amendment principles and attempts to stifle American's right of free speech by penalizing them for opposing Israeli policy participating in boycotts against countries that violate International law, which is a constitutional protected right. See: https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/rights-protesters/new-israel-anti-...
6
You will all recall the words of a man you hold in high regard: "Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won. So I think on that one I [T]rump you.”
No so much fun living by the rules you rammed down the throats of those in the minority, is it? Which, incidentally, is the reason we have a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy.
1
I think abortion has been worked to death as a political issue, the Democrats need to argue their own points. The Republicans have successfully used abortion as a dog whistle for evangelicals and misogynists. More important now is that we have a court that thinks the President and Republicans should have supreme powers to wreck our democracy - an activist court that gave big money the right to rule our political system, an activist court that is supporting gerrymandering by both political parties to deny voters their say, an activist court that is destroying what's left of unions, an activist court that will bring back no medical coverage for pre-existing conditions, an activist court that has no respect for precedent, an activist court that thinks religious discrimination is just fine, and an activist court that will not respect the rule of law, allowing abuse of legal refugees in violation of our constitution. This court is complicit, the next justice must be someone who is not. If you want your base activated, not the Republicans, sell your story. And by the way, ditch a "Better Deal," it's a stupid slogan that is patently meaningless.
2
Senator Schumer,
Taken in today’s context I wonder what your thoughts are on Senator Reid’s change to the voting rules for conformation of Judges? Was it, as it now seems “Ill advised?
Of course the possibility of this day dawning was discussed and discarded at the time. Winning then took priority over prudence! As a result you stand before us “with hat in hand sobbing that the end is nigh”!
The courts are not the place to make law and to “discover new rights and powers”! Yet for more than a generation Democrats employed the Justice system to fundamentally change America without a single vote by its citizens!
The Senate is currently elected at large in all the states! There can be no claim of results based on districts drawn to disenfranchise voters! The Framers tasked the Senate with the duty and the power to advise and consent!
They also gave the Senate the right to write its own rules! They were wise enough to understand that times would change and that the rules would need to follow. They left it to the “wisdom of its members when to change the rules or let them stand as they had been!
Your Party changed them for political gain! Just as your Party has used the Justice System to grant you changes Americans never voted on! Which brings us to you today “with hat in hand”!
“What goes around comes around!” seems appropriate to mention here. Fundamental changes in American Life need to come from the Congress and the several states not the President’s Pen or the Courts!
6
There's no honest argument for refusing to give Garland a hearing yet giving this new nominee a hearing. On that basis, why don't the Dems (if they win in 2020), just take the position that Gorsuch was a dishonest appointment, appoint Garland, and tell Gorsuch to get lost. Isn't that that the correct and legal remedy for stealing a Supreme Court seat?
3
There is a simple and clear argument. Republicans had the majority in the Senate in 2016 and would never have voted to confirm a leftist juror to the SCOTUS. Obama could have nominated a centrist, or he could have made a recess appointment, as Eisenhower did on three occasions under similar circumstances. Hearings and a vote would have resulted in Garland being subjected to a microscopic dissection of his life and resulted in him not being confirmed anyway.
In 2017 and 2018, Republicans have a majority in the Senate. The majority of the Senate approved of Gorsuch. If a majority in the Senate approve of Trump's next nomination, he or she will be confirmed.
To Democrats, your suggestion would seem legal, since their approach is that the law means whatever they want it to mean. A more likely result, should the Democrats attain a Senate majority and the presidency in the future is that they will increase the size of the SCOTUS sufficiently to be able to pack the court with ideologues. Democrats rely upon the courts to effect legal changes they are unable to get the democratic process to approve.
Which is why Trump was elected.
5
Surprisingly, Garland was not the first or only nominee to be denied a hearing because it was a Presidential election year and/or the Senate thought the nominee would have changed the direction of the court. McConnell's action was unusual but not unprecedented. Look up Reuben Walworth and Edward Bradford.
https://quiznox.com/2017/01/31/election-year-supreme-court-nominations/
Additionally it takes a majority in the House and two-thirds of the Senate to impeach and convict (remove) a federal judge. Judges are only supposed to be removed if they don't demonstrate "good behavior".
IOW Gorsuch is going to be on the Supreme Court for as long as he wants to be there or is able to be there.
2
Pure drivel. Garland was a centrist. He was superbly qualified. Republicans would have been put to the task of rejecting a centrist. If McConnell really thought Garland would have been rejected, then he would have given him a hearing. Gorsuch got a majority because the Rs controlled the Senate. There's no need for court-packing. The activist judges argument is malarky and off-topic. The Republicans stole a Supreme Court seat The Dems should take it back.
The confrontation is far simpler than the intellectual proclivities of human beings care to admit; there are but two philosophies as it concerns governance; those who adhere to the primacy of the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and those who do not. As the only secular human being who can posit what Christians refer to as the “second coming” to the exact day without having to quote a single verse of scripture written by men, I would suggest prudence until all have the opportunity to review mathematical evidence of existence and a plan; a Creator presenting first and foremost as an unfathomable intellect…and yet the same G*d who presented at Sinai.
Soon.
We Democrats get it, Senator. Trump bad. Trump court appointment very bad. You didn't need to have a staffer write a whole New York Times editorial to tell us what we already know. And your solution - Democrats should call their senators? Exactly what we've come to expect from the people who sat on their hands and let Mitch McConnell steal Merrick Garland's seat on the Supreme Court.
When you come up with a real strategy that shows you actually are willing to do something to protect the rights you're so concerned about, come back and talk to me. But until then, stop pretending that what you're really doing, which is nothing, is meaningful.
We Democrats get it, Senator. Trump bad. Trump court appointment very bad. You didn't need to write a whole New York Times editorial to tell us what we already know. And your solution - Democrats should call their senators? Exactly what we've come to expect from the people who sat on their hands and let Mitch McConnell steal Merrick Garland's seat on the Supreme Court.
When you come up with a real strategy that shows you actually are willing to do something to protect the rights you're so concerned about, come back and talk to me. But until then, stop pretending that what you're really doing, which is nothing, is meaningful.
6
I hope Sen. Shumer now understands that Democrats need to support everyone who has our values rather than just the "old guard". The "old guard" are who have helped put the US where she is. Who went for the okey doke on everything from mass incarceration, drug laws that impact the poor to Garlen Merrick. It is why I love Maxine Waters. We have bowed enough and it is time to rise up.
1
All I can see is that I expect Democrats, and with EVERY ounce of their beings, to fight this power grab. The GOP is completely drunk with power, and trying to ram their extreme agenda down our throats, an agenda that a majority don't support. I expect the Democrats to push HARD against Despicable Donald's pick for SCOTUS. After all, Gorsuch is filling a STOLEN seat.
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." This is where we are now.
We seem to be stuck with this pathetic leadership on the Democratic side and thus it's virtually assured that Trump will get his nominee. No one discusses the fact that a Supreme Court judge can be impeached if chosen illegitimately. A treasonous president shouldn't be allowed to choose a judge for the high court, let alone two. (I'm already in favor of impeaching Gorsuch.) All that said, the most important thing we can do is register people to vote. The more voters the more we can overwhelm the gerrymanders and the voter suppression on the other side.
Remember: Republicans are working hard against the interests of the American people. They have no answers to our problems, only more problems for hard-working Americans. (That's why they have to cheat.) So we must vote them out. And then we can think about replacing our dear leader, Chuck, because this is as fired up as he gets, and it isn't enough. Instead of writing pablum like this, he needs to strong arm Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp.
1
Hip hip hooray
He will also only appoint someone who will support his authority to shut block or shut down the Dept. of Justice Russia investigation and his ability to pardon himself, thus making our democracy a dictatorship.
Senator Schumer, the Democrats must do whatever they can to stall the new Trump appointment until beyond the midterms--an extremely difficult task, given the Republican majority in Congress, but, is it any more unlikely than a lying, racist con man winning the American presidency? In the midterms, the Democrats must take a lesson from the recent Ocasio-Cortez victory. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez won by mobilizing people who have become deeply disaffected by the capitalist, corporate takeover of politics. Democrats must deliver the party's pro-working-class, pro-social justice message to Americans through massive grassroots organizing. Get out the vote!!
I look forward to reading the conservative response right here on these same pages.
By writing an op ed in the NYT the Senator is preaching to the choir. Just like the railroading of Al Franken for a ridiculous issue that most Americans can not relate to, the Democrats are not able to get their message, if they have one, across to most voters. Their message needs to be voiced loud and clear regarding taxes,corporate greed, jobs that pay a living wage and expose this administrations boldface lies regarding the economy.
4
Exhorting voters to call their Senators is no substitute for Democratic leaders to read the riot act to the DINOs.
The DNC and Schumer are obstacles, not assets, in the fight to defeat the GOP. The only hope for the party (which I regard as only the slightly lesser of two evils anyway) is to support truly progressive candidates.
We need to organize joyful rallies, with music and dance, at every court house on every Saturday from now until the November election. The crowds will grow every Saturday until they force our Congress to listen. Go to the Supreme Court steps or your nearest court house on Saturday. Make our position on the issues visible.
Dear Senator Schumer, please make every effort in your power to stop Mr. Trump in every way, every minute of every day. And may Democrats win the House and Senate in November
The idea that rights will be taken away is inherently false. The rights you do own are given to you by God. The good news is that even if you are a hard boiled atheist, those rights are yours because your heart beats. The constitution does not exist to bestow rights. It exists to restrain government. This is the central struggle in the wrestling match over supreme court nominees. Remanding issues back to the states would mean local accountability. That means it will be easier to redress your representative. It will mean power will slither away from the beltway and get closer to your driveway.
My driveway can not provide Medicare fir folks
Over 65 nor social security can u tell me why our founding fathers wrote
The constitution was it for the each state you are wrong we a country a nation we need a federal government
Of the people for the people by the people
Want some advice, Senator?
Stop playing nice with Republicans. Stop telling us we need to be civil in the face of incivility - or evil. Stop pretending this is anything less than the fate of our country, and our values, that's at risk.
And if we're being honest - step aside as a leader. Let's get some fresh blood and ideas in there.
2
As Obama said "Elections have consequences." He proceeded with victor's justice and ignored the nearly half the country that disagreed with him.
Perhaps a Democrat should arise who supports abortion rights and gun control, but is not a left-wing extremist who wants to allow every central american into the country and to upend social traditions. One who does not want me to pay for everyone else. Someone who supports individual responsibility.
If this person comes, I would vote for them in a heartbeat. But until then, I will vote with my wallet and protect what I have worked for.
4
What do you think the Republicans have been doing since Election Night 2008?
Senator Schumer, it's time to actually do something instead of talking and writing about doing something.
I've called and mailed. Where has that gotten me?
Why is Trump's voice the only one we hear and read about? Where are the Democrats? Where have you all been?
Do what you were elected to do - make government work for, and not against, the welfare of its people. Wield your power for the good of the country.
8
Your comment is spot on, Monica. I could not agree with you more.
2
Elections have consequences, Chuck. Don't be surprised (or whine) when Trump picks a conservative for the court.
4
Yes, Senator Schumer, the few rights we have left do hang in the balance, so I, as a Democrat, want to see you and every other Democrat in the Senate start fighting as though your lives depend on it.
Begin by screaming to the heavens every single day that Trump's nominee to replace Justice Kennedy must not be put forward until after the midterms. Take a page from Mitch McConnell's book and do everything you possibly can to delay this nomination. Concede nothing.
In fact, go further. Declare publicly that your entire career from this day forward will be directed at making Donald J. Trump a one-term president. What the GOP did to Obama, do to Trump.
If you are not prepared to go to the wall over this, then perhaps you shouldn't be in the Senate.
4
Senator Schumer, while we all share in your concern, it has been known for months that Kennedy was going to retire.
It was no secret.
It was also no secret the Trump would nominate someone in the mold of Scalia.
Now what?
Where were you months ago?
Were you even talking with moderate Republicans throughout?
Were you even making an effort to try?
Better yet, where have you been for the past year and a half?
I have to say Sen. Schumer, your leadership, in addition to Pelosi's and the hierarchy of the party leaves much to be desired.
In point of fact, you have demonstrated an incapacity to learn from your mistakes. You have made no changes in the party structure and you have taken for granted whatever support you have left.
There has been no leadership on your part.
None!
In the wake of Trump's election, you have failed to capitalize on the anger and desperation spreading across the country.
Instead of filing writ after writ questioning the results of the election (perhaps even establishing new precedent), you folded your cards and handed Trump the keys to the oval office.
Where is election system reform?
Where is your platform Sen. Schumer?
Are you expecting Mueller to do your job for you?
Where is anything?
Even this editorial reflects inherent weakness.
We are aware of the stakes Sen. Schumer, but if this is your idea of a fight, please step aside now and let someone in who is capable of leading and, dare I say, even capable of winning!
13
Whatever our beliefs are on abortion or unions, the Rule or Law as well as The Constitution are sacrosanct. The President has the right to appoint Supreme Court Justices.
1
Yet Obama was denied this right.
The future is already here. In the decision SCOTUS just made to uphold the travel ban Roberts declared near unlimited Presidential Power in cases of national security, saying that despite Trumps numerous public defenses for his “Muslim Ban “ changing the verbiage to travel ban, the Supremes were giving him the benefit of doubt on religious discrimination in favor of Presidential Powers. You will note that Trump has already declared the steel and aluminum tariffs a “national security” issue. I expect we are only a tweet away from total militarization of immigration on the Southern Border as a National Security Issue, same with NAFTA. Need I even go into Muellers investigation on the Russian Witch Hunt? Shut it down, pardons all around based on National Security. Soon, every court case will be fought on National Security framing.
Thank you Sen. Schumer and thank you NYT for providing the Senator with the opportunity to document his commitment to resisting the regime. The issue that the Senator does not mention is the great probability that an appointee will sit in judgement of the master. Given the conflicts of interest in Kennedy's resignation, filling the court should wait until the new Senate reconvenes in January. No lame duck confirmations! Let Sen. Schumer's piece be a call to arms for resistance by the Senate and American people to those who would attack our liberties and the constitution.
Yes, by all means folks, do something about this because although I am the Democratic Party's leader in the Senate, it seems I am powerless. Besides, I have dinner reservations and then a Wall Street fundraiser to attend. Ta ta.
6
I’ve never felt my life to be so threatened by my own country. We are all being taken on a “Nantucket Sleighride” and it looks as if the whale will win. We talk about resistance yet are undermined by our representatives.
I’m recovering from cancer, yet feel like the next bout will be the last if this madman and his donors get their way, and I cannot see our current government capable of turning away the onslaught if moral and civic atrocities he seems hellbent on implementing.
Each day we awaken to news more disheartening than the day before. I suspect others feel as I do, that the damages are not just social but emotional and physical as well. I fear for myself. I fear for my children. I fear we have seen the last if a nation that, while imperfect, was the last bastion of hope.
3
I suspect that most of the people who would be born as a result of a Republican ban on abortion would likely grow up to vote for Democrats.
With more than one million abortions performed each year, this might only take a few decades to wipe out the entire Republican party.
I wish that was the case but that logic is flawed. If the reason for your existence is due to Republicans doing away with Roe vs. Wade they will most likely become Republican.
The problem with the Democrats is they have lost their ability to fight. Entreating people to call your Senator in an op-ed piece is not a strategy or a campaign to stop this. A march on Washington or a door to door campaign is. Walking out to prevent a quorum is, the promise to increase the number of justices in the future is, having 6 blue states finish the call for a constitutional convention and then fighting to embed these rights in the constitution is. I don’t necessarily support any of these solutions but I do support the democratic leadership coming up with some real solutions that we can all get behind. Stop whining and do something please.
4
Roe v Wade is based on the right of the individual to own property, (the Fourth Amendment). As such, it is a precarious peg on which to hang a woman's right to be involved in reproductive decision making. We need a new and unambiguous Amendment to preserve our rights. The Court's interpretations are as willy-nilly as the people's are and we ought not to depend upon them. There have been too many deplorable rulings. We need real legislative action to protect us from both government and special interests who would take back the freedoms we have earned. Don't blame the SCOTUS, Mr. Schumer: Get to work on this.
3
I attended a march against Trump's immigration policies in South Carolina Saturday. Millions of average citizens have already taken to the streets to protest the actions (and inactions) of the Administration and Congress. Past this, organizing communities and voting in elections, there's not much else we can do. The rest is in your hands and that of your colleagues, Mr. Schumer.
Congress will have to decide who is most important: the voters or those lining campaign coffers.
Congress needs to take responsibility for the actions of Congress. You've sold American down the river. It's time to help us paddle back to some semblance of sanity.
3
So Senator Schumer treat this moment with urgency. If you waltz with weakness, then it is not just for the party but the nation that will suffer. Democrats will be complicit if they don't rise up and fight. To maintain our civilian rights we need to resort to the power of civil disobedience. Think of the marches over the years--the demonstrations at lunch counters. You know that list is endless. This is not a time to waltz around with white gloves.
2
Affordable Care Act is as good as toast now, considering that the individual mandate has been repealed and the new group 'skinny" plans for small business owners will deprive the marketplace of healthy, viable insured.
Roe v. Wade is the problem here. If the Supremes kick it back to the States, then the problem you describe is come to fruition.
But elections have consequences. If the nomination is made on July 9th, and confirmation moves along as expected, the new justice will be sworn in by Labor Day.
Focus on winning the senate so that, if there is another vacancy (Ginsburg, anyone?), you can control the committees and ensure that a hard-right nominee does not get confirmed.
Until then, spare us the empty rhetoric.
1
Americans who believe in liberty and justice for all face the same quandary women faced when they sued for the right to vote in the 1800s, and the Supreme Court turned them away. Women turned away from the court that proved as hostile to freedom as our current court will be and focused their attention on legislative races, as we should, too. Progressives and liberals must recognize we're in this for the long haul, now.
1
Senator Schumer has more power to prevent an anti-choice appointment than he seems willing to admit here. Is he holding cards up his sleeve? Or does he think guilting Republicans into doing the right thing will work? The latter would be worrying, since it has already proven ineffective. He and the rest of the minority could withhold unanimous consent on all Senate proceedings beginning at a predetermined time; this would grind the Senate to a halt, and could force the Republicans to present a nominee that would be approved by both sides. He could also simply prevent a quorum from being reached at the time of a confirmation vote--and on other votes, for good measure--which effort would prevent a confirmation if the Democrats hold the line. I'm sure there are other creative options as well. Mr. McConnell has made trust and decorum a sucker's bet in the Senate; we need to start fighting back as viciously as McConnell does, for the sake of the future of this country. We should all reach out to Senator Schumer and remind him of these techniques.-Hugh Cushing and Louise Dubin, NYC
1
This fiasco is the direct result of our abysmal public education system. Americans grow up reciting the pledge of allegiance every single morning, yet the vast majority reach adulthood believing that our country is run by the president. That's why everyone has an opinion about that office, and most couldn't name their state's senators and representatives with a gun to their head.
If "the country is run by the president" doesn't strike you as absurdly incorrect, it's understandable -- everyone talks about it that way. But it's not.
Most decisions that impact our lives, shape our society, and fill the pages of our history books are made by Congress and the Supreme Court. Since Congress gets to play gatekeeper with the bench, and can immediately pass a new law that overrides any Supreme Court ruling, it's the one branch of government with the greatest control over any other.
Americans need to stop sleeping through midterms, and stop allowing anyone to simply park themselves in a ludicrously powerful congressional seat until they choose to retire. Frankly, it defies logic that anyone is actually good enough, or adaptable enough, to still be the best person for the job after more than a decade.
If every adult in this country had to watch a three minute Schoolhouse Rock video about this, our quality of life would skyrocket within four years. Unfortunately, we have to take it upon ourselves to learn this and apply it to how we engage in our civic responsibilities.
1
Senator Schumer: Sorry, but elections have consequences. If only Democrats had nominated someone for president who really cared about improving the lives of working class Americans, there wouldn't be all this hand-wringing about the next Supreme Court nominee. The DNC and the super delegates (gee, might that include you?) should be ashamed of having put their thumb on the scale during the primaries. Hillary Clinton's implicit campaign theme ("It's Her Turn Because She Put Up With Bill's Philandering"") didn't really resonate with the concerns of downwardly mobile, formerly middle class voters who saw at least a glimmer of hope in the campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.
9
BINGO !
1
Earl--If only Democrats were not still doing their political business, as usual. I fear they will snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, just as they did in 2014 and 2016. We need a new party, with new blood. Please retire, Chuck. You have reached your expiration date. Take Nancy with you.
1
He's 82 years old. He's earned the right to retire. But who knew the fate of the nation's social policy for the next 50 years rested on this unelected justice.
Senator Schumer has more power to prevent an anti-choice appointment then he seems willing to admit here. Is he holding cards up his sleeve? Or does he think guilting Republicans into doing the right thing will work? The latter would be worrying, since it has already proven ineffective. He and the rest of the minority could withhold unanimous consent on all Senate proceedings beginning at a predetermined time; this would grind the Senate to a halt, and could force the Republicans to present a nominee that would be approved by both sides. He could also simply prevent a quorum from being reached at the time of a confirmation vote--and on other votes, for good measure--which effort would prevent a confirmation if the Democrats hold the line. I'm sure there are other creative options as well. Mr. McConnell has made trust and decorum a sucker's bet in the Senate; we need to start fighting back as viciously as McConnell does, for the sake of the future of this country. We should all reach out to Senator Schumer and remind him of these techniques. -Hugh Cushing
9
Please, Senator, could you at least hear the name of the nominee you are campaigning against so vigorously before vigorously campaigning against him or her? Senators are supposed to vote to confirm individual nominees based upon their personal qualifications and, in theory, the process is not supposed to be politicized. This entire piece, however, is raw politics. Whatever the politics may be, the thinking behind it corrupts the process. If the response is that President Trump surely will (not has, please note, but surely will) politicize the process this time, the response is that two wrongs do not make a right, which is particularly true when the antecedent wrong has not yet been committed.
3
Trump makes everything political, why wouldn't he do so with a SCOTUS nominee, which is inherently political?
1
"This entire piece ... is raw politics." Darn that Schumer for using the GOP playbook.
But in any case, why does he need to know the names? Can we not conclude, given that the names were suggested by uncompromisingly retrograde organizations, that the list is populated exclusively by uncompromising retrogrades?
2
Senator Schumer:
Oh, how I wish you were the leader to play hardball. But, you follow the motto of living to fight another day. I'm not so sure we have too many other days left.
So, I think you should play to your strengths and try to make a deal with Trump.
Trump wants his precious wall. While it pains me to say to say this on so many levels, I think you should offer to help him fully fund his wall.
In return? Hold out for two things:
1) Trump agrees to nominate a centrist judge to fill the current vacancy on the Supreme Court.
2) Trump agrees to nominate a certain number of more centrist judges to the federal bench to help provide some balance to the arch conservative slate he's been nominating.
The deal may not be popular with the progressive wing of the party in the short term who will fault you for working with Trump. But, the deal will likely turn out to be a good one for progressive causes in the long term.
3
I think the problem with that is Trump is not an honest broker and can't be trusted. He changes his mind on a whim, and has a history of stabbing people in the back.
2
If only politicians would fight for the people with the same energy they fight to hold that cushy, lucrative job We gave them, we would not have to worry about loosing Our Democracy.
6
That is exactly right. I commented to the NY Times about how the homeless here in Los Angeles are taking over and abusing the general public (destroying neighborhoods, small businesses and public parks) and if you call your politician (or the police) all you will hear is, "I can't do anything about it." The politicians can't even get the "sophisticated and educated" dog owners to clean up after their dogs.
I called my councilman to complain and the homeless army. I'm waiting to hear back.
2
Mr. Schumer says, "President Trump’s own words tell us that his nominee to the court will almost certainly vote to ... eviscerate affordable access to health care for millions of Americans." Would that be the health care, Mr. Schumer, for which it was recently reported that premiums DOUBLED between 2012 and 2017 -- as opposed to Obama's promise that they would decline by $2,500? And would that be the same health care for which deductibles saw a similar mushrooming during that same period? Would that be the health care plan that strong-arms me into paying for maternity care and abortion coverage, even though I am a single male? The same one that muscles nuns into paying for abortions in opposition to their devotion to the sanctity of life? There are many adjectives for that health care plan, Mr. Schumer. Affordable is not one of them. Wise, just, fair, and American are others that would be totally inappropriate.
3
Dan from deep red GA,
Note that before the ACA, premiums were rising astronomically and the GOP said not a word about it. It's fine for millions of our countrymen to go without health insurance, say they.
Health care should be a right, not a privilege for the fortunate few!
If you look closely, you will see that premiums and deductibles did not rise as much as you indicate after implementation of the ACA. In fairness, compare them before and after the ACA, and provide us with your findings.
No one should be without health insurance, just as you would not want drivers to go without car insurance.
As for paying for others' maternity care and contraception, you will do that anyway, if women go without health care, or you will end up paying for the unwanted children they deliver.
2
The ACA is very affordable to those who qualify for subsidieand for those that now receive Medicaid via its expansion.
1
It's called health *insurance.* That's how it works. Believe it or not, if you are lucky you will get sick and die eventually. Having health care will be a good thing then.
1
I don't think there is anything that Democrats can do to affect the outcome of this. The numbers just aren't there, and as we know, alternative strategies, i.e. those of the hardball sort, are no longer part of the current Democratic repertoire. Saying "...tell your senators they should not vote for a candidate from Mr. Trump’s preordained list." is a sad joke. You're talking to the people who elected Trump in the first place.
2
>
Schumer or the Dem leadership don't have a clue. The political paradigm changed on them and they're lost in the woods and will be devoured by the wolves.
This is NOT to say the socialist wing of the party has a clue, since they are more lost than Schumer's crew in their idealism.
I thought for sure there was going to be a blue wave; I become less sure everyday. Both wings of the Dem party continue to play into Trump's hand.
3
"President Trump’s own words tell us that his nominee to the court will almost certainly vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and eviscerate affordable access to health care for millions of Americans." ----- Nice try, Sen. Schumer. Trump is on record saying he isn't interested in overturning Roe v. Wade. (In fact, as recently as yesterday.) This is another "abolish ICE" tactic. Just spew the opposite of whatever Trump says.
2
Really? I seem to recall him saying that he is nominating pro life judges, so how does that differ? That was his way of letting his rabid base know that he's looking out for them and keeping his promise.
Senator Schumer, consider yourself told.
For anyone who might be a little fuzzy on the details pertaining to abortion rights in the United States, they already are limited/restricted pretty severely based on what State a person lives in. As problematic as it is that male legislators believe themselves to be worthy arbiters of women’s health, it’s even more concerning that these greasy charlatans preach their hackneyed “pro-life” rhetoric when every other legislative decision made seems to suggest the opposite.
If life truly begins at conception, as the false equivalency between abortion and murder (a subset of homicide which has a fairly narrow legal definition) would lead one to believe, then a woman could theoretically be charged with murder and imprisoned indefinitely for having a miscarriage.
The ‘debate’ over abortion is more of a debasement of individual human rights in the name of patriarchy. Even a politician can’t genuinely claim to be “pro-life” if they’re not simultaneously pushing to advance healthcare coverage for all of their constituents; and not just the unborn.
3
I hope this call-for-action has been sent to other publications beyond the NYT, which a lot of people in the USA do not read. Has it been sent to USA Today, Fox, etc? And I hope Sen. Schumer is going on TV and Twitter, to get this message to places where people don't really read anything. Am I confident that a media-savvy strategy like that has been implemented? No. But I hope I'm wrong.
2
We need to tell Susan Collins that if she lets Trump and McConnell fill a Supreme Court seat with an anti abortion judge, American women (and men) will begin a national boycott of LL Bean. Tell Lisa Murkowski a national boycott of cruises in Alaska will began for the same reason. Perhaps the boycotts should start now with emails to LL Bean, to make the point. Marching doesn't change behavior as readily as money does.
2
Trump came calling as a charlatan with the ability to fool many people. He convinced those supporters that the ACA was bad in all respects and should be repealed. The people cheered, against their own interests.
Trump preached that Roe v. Wade is bad, which energized his religious base. And they cheered not realizing they would jump start the march to rein in our individual rights and freedoms.
Trump has convinced many that he, and he alone, is the nation's savior and therefore the masses must believe. And the masses cheered.
As Trump continues to ransack this country with his tariffs which will raise the prices of goods, kowtow to Putin, insult our allies (who may be bailing on this country), the masses cheer.
Congress, should it swing more to Trump, is poised to enact any and all of Trump's wish list items, as puppet legislative bodies should and only Trump knows what will strike his thought process at that instant.
Congress and the judiciary was intended to act as a check and balance with the executive, three co-equal branches. Those days are now history as exhibited by the legislative and judicial branches.
Senator Schumer is correct in his opinion-our rights are in the balance and many will still cheer Trump as those rights are abolished.
The president is under investigation for colluding with a foreign enemy to steal the 2016 election, as well as other crimes. The Supreme Court could very likely be asked tor rule on a variety of issues related to this investigation, including but not limited to "can the president pardon himself."
To give that president the right to appoint his own judge in such cases is unthinkable.
Recently I took a trip into the memory hole and re-read a half dozen 2016 columns and "serious" thinkpieces by conservative writers from such places as the Cato Institute, all very seriously explaining why there's no real need for 9 Supreme Court justices, all detailing the history of the many times there were fewer. Naturally, these were all written back when everyone assumed Hillary Clinton was going to win the election. I am amused at their "sudden" change of heart.
No, it's not 2016 -- it's far more serious. Instead of a president from a party they don't like getting to pick the next justice to the Supreme Court, they potentially have an architect of treason doing so. I'm shocked that everyone is pretending this isn't the case.
The president is under investigation. He shouldn't pick his own judge. End of discussion.
7
Except that, despite what you might have inferred from all the hysterical media, the President is not, and has never been under investigation.
The FBI investigation never targeted President Trump. The reason Trump was frustrated was because, while he wasn't a suspect in the investigation into Russian interference in the election, Comey refused to publicly acknowledge that fact. The Mueller investigation has stated several times that Trump is not a person of interest at this time, as recently as last month.
"ideological nominee". What a laugh. What about former President Obama's two nominees? Could not get any more political that those two. President Obama, along with his two partners in tow, made huge strides in dividing the nation.
I had hoped that President Trump would work at reversing that devastating trend. His initial comments about the illegal alien issues gave me hope he was gong to force Congress to work on a bi-partisan solution. Unfortunately he just collapsed on that.
2
With Mitch McConnell in charge it will be impossible to stop this train. Even moderate Republicans, like Susan Collins, vote along party lines.
One of the questions that should be examined when a name is put forth is what do they stand for when it comes to the issue of Separation of Church and State. This issue alone needs to be defended and upheld. It has not been addressed, hence these other issues, like ACA, abortion rights, LBGT rights, and a myriad of other issues are constantly being challenged on religious grounds.
And if it is found that whomever the appointee is has lied, a la Clarence Thomas and the Anita Hill testimony of sexual harassment, the appointee should be removed immediately. How does it help the Justice system if a sitting Supreme Court Justice got there by lying? Just look at all of the incompetent Cabinet Appointees that the Republican Senate installed. Jeff Sessions lied and when that was found out he still maintained his position.
The Republican Senate cannot be trusted to make any decisions when it comes to the Justice system.
Not to let the Democrats off the hook. They put Clarence Thomas there. I still have the picture in my mind of every Democratic Senator who voted for him and who also prevented other women from testifying against Thomas.
Good luck to Schumer trying to get this appointment forestalled.
4
The democrats are totally lost. Defeating President Trump should be a lot easier than this. The problem is that the party has lost touch with reality and refuses to see itself as the rest of the country sees it.
You have taken a direction that the country does not want.
Your leaders are a running republican party political ad.
Every time Maxine Waters or Nancy Pelosi are on the news the rest of the country just shakes its collective head.
The current nomination battle is already lost. If the author of this op-ed didn't admit that you can add a third name to the point above. It is a given that the behaviors of the left during the confirmation process will further damage the democrats but it looks like they cannot help devolving into what many few them as.
None of it matters if you don't or can't be honest about what you are and how the rest of the country views you.
2
It no longer matters what Schumer and a possible Dem Congress think. All their laws will be nullified by the Republican Court. I'm too old to emigrate, so I don't know what to do, except stack/pack the Court with liberal justices.
1
And if the Democratic Senators believe Bone Spurs' assertion that he will not ask any of his potential nominees their position on Roe V. Wade, I have a casino in Atlantic City I'd like to sell them.
If Trump honestly wants to have any sort of legacy he should consider righting a grievous wrong by nominating Merrill Garland to the SCOTUS vacancy. Were that unlikely scenario to play out he would be remembered as the president who planted the seeds of bipartisanship when it was needed most. It certainly would go a long way toward the reconciliation necessary to put an end tp our political civil war.
And no mention of confronting McConnell about delaying the nomination until after the elections? Weak.
1
It is not just our rights that hang in the balance with the appointment of a new Justice. My fear is that with more conservatives on the supreme bench our democracy will turn into more of a theocracy with religious fanatics/evangelicals finding ways to undermine our constitution in their favor as they do with their inflammatory rhetoric over women rights and the propaganda that the USA is a christian nation which must follow old testament biblical dogma.
6
old and New Testament ....
Nonetheless, I agree with your views.
This opinion is just a plea for voters to turn out in the midterms. Schumer knows that replacing the Justice is a done deal, and we will have a new conservative justice by October.
2
With regard to Roe vs. Wade, the point seems to be that democracy cannot be trusted, right? The American people should not be allowed a vote on a law that defines when and if an abortion could be performed. Says a lot about democracy!
1
Mr Schumer, sorry to say but you don’t have what it takes to become a party leader. I hardly see you on TV. Unfortunately for us and fortunately for Mr Trump you are not able to excite the base. You don’t have to be Trump like but you can be little bit aggressive when responding. When I see you on TV actually it makes me more nervous. Under your leadership I don’t see Dems taking back the house and senate.
5
The sad thing is, Trump isn't "pro-life" or "pro-choice" and he doesn't understand the intricacies of healthcare and insurance.
Being unintelligent and obnoxious is an faster connection to powerful people than being intelligent and kind.
He is only the foul mouthpiece for cruel people who want to keep life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to themselves.
We're all going to suffer because a minority of similar-minded people voted for nefarious organizations. They certainly weren't voting for a president.
The Democrats need to push the issue that Trump is a dupe and a criminal. Do this in areas where the GOP can make a difference. Not all people who are Republican lack a conscience; those few Senators who may have a shred of decency need to listen to their constituents and take care of their country first.
Agree with you 100% Senator Schumer. But we have a problem that one op ed piece will NOT solve. There's a lunatic with a bullhorn starting to build popularity through more demagoguery and we have NO ONE on the side of all that is right with her/his own bullhorn. We appear to be about to make historically puny gains in the House and perhaps lose a few seats in the Senate because of this one-side knife fight. Here at the start of July, there may still be time for you all in Democratic leadership to make this a fair knife fight. Unfortunately, none of you has either the knowledge or inclination to street fighting. In short, the great "blue wave" is about to fizzle out. So frustrating; all of you -- from the gaunt and personality-weak DNC chair to our beloved ancients in the House and Senate. Shaking my head.
2
These are fine words, but amount to nothing but rhetoric. Telling voters to call their senators? Why don't you just give us a broom, and instruct us to sweep back the Pacific Ocean? C'mon, Sen. Schumer, roll up your sleeves, put on your game face and DO something. Fight Mitch McConnell with parliamentary tactics; disrupt the Senate proceedings; lean on the few marginal Republicans who must may go your way. Do something other than just TALK. It's time for the Democrats to employ the same street-fighting techniques as their GOP counter-parts. It worked for Mitch. It can work for you.
16
Two issues with this: 1) So the Democratic strategy is to call your senators? I agree, but that's it? 2) No, the most important vacancy was the one caused by Scalia's death. You know, the seat that Obama and the Democrats let McConnell steal through historic obstruction.
You and Nancy are good at editorials and all, Chuck. It's not enough. It's time for new, young leadership for the Democratic party in Congress. Whatever your strategy is for taking on Trump, Ryan and McConnell, it has failed. Your generation of Democrats continue to "bring knives to a gun fight." We need a more radical approach to this game. Trump has torn up the rules and you are still playing by them. To have you penning polite editorials and stepping up to the podium every couple of weeks is not going to do it.
3
I am appalled at the deafening silence of the Democrats in Congress. I see no push back of any kind against Trump and his Congressional enablers.
5
"For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two to three Republicans in the suburbs of Philadelphia. And you can repeat that in Ohio, and Illinois and Wisconsin." Do you remember when you said that Mr. Schumer? You are so right sir, our rights are at risk and your boneheaded strategy helped make that possible. How you are in a leadership position is baffling. I don't expect the Democrats to resist. In fact, Jones and Manchin will probably vote with the Republicans to confirm Trumps nominee to the Supreme Court.
3
Well, Mr. Schumer, your Clintonian Democratic Party of Wall Street is part of the now decades-old history of buy-partisanship that has brought the country to where it is today. Ignoring organizing at the local and state level vs. the Koch-fueled long-term rightwing strategy while playing up to the big money "donors" (bribery by another name) seems to be the core of the Party business behind the rhetoric. So now, instead of learning the multiple lessons of 2016, your DNC "leadership" continues to put its thumb on the scale, rigging its internal primary system while issuing tone-deaf blather about "civility" and "capitalism".
If the Party does manage to avoid snatching defeat from the jaws of victory this November, what's going to be different other than "not Drumpf"? We'll have a solid corporate-owned, neo-fascist SCOTUS, a sociopathic President's Administration and an impending war with Iran via our proxy in the Middle East, Israel under that country's autocrat.
So lecture on about "our rights in the balance" but those of us Dems and Independents who've been around longer than today's news, no longer find you and the Democratic Party elders credible.
8
I made this comment in 2016 “ I'm more relieved that Clinton lost then upset that Trump won.” Had Clinton won, the status quo would have continued and very little would have changed.
Many times hitting rock bottom brings about real change, and if this isn’t rock bottom I don't know what is.
The Democrats seem to be to busy keeping their jobs instead of doing their jobs, hopefully that ends now.
With Ocasio-Cortez’s upset over Crowley comes a ray of hope. A hope that we can overturn Citizen’s United, move toward Medicare for all, put an end to the indentured student, and have a government that represents the many, not the few.
3
Senator Schumer, you are preaching to the choir for many of us. And of course, we will do as much as we can to put pressure on our Senators. But, sir, you need to be more forceful among your own. Your counterparts in Congress are not fighting hard enough as far as I am concerned. We women had the largest march in history in January 2017. Where on earth has it gotten us? I can promise you this. If Roe vs Wade dare be overturned, you will witness the largest revolt of one group in recent times. And we will blame Congress as much as this awful, awful man forever tainting the highest office in the land. You in DC are not doing your job in protecting our rights. But I promise you, we women will.
8
If Democrat leadership was effective, we wouldn't have issues like this upcoming nominee. From making the ACA such a flawed law, to firing the first shot in rolling back the filibuster of judges, to the inability to present anything like solidarity on fundamental issues, the party has been wholly disappointing. I don't expect the resistance to any nominee to be more than a whimper.
3
As Senator Schumer says, this is probably the most momentous political event of our lifetimes and those of our children.
Right now we must mobilise every resource to persuade our elected representatives to prevent the confirmation of any Justice who will overturn Roe, gut the Affordable Care Act or consider cases from a prejudiced view. How they vote on these confirmations will follow them for their careers and their lifetimes.
Can they hear a child or grandchild asking: "Arn't you ashamed that you have voted for that?"
Write, call, visit your representatives now. This cannot wait.
1
Let us hope that there will be a child or grandchild that will be spared the abortion and will be there to thank the parents and the grandparents for not killing them in the womb.
"Thank you Mom and Dad for not aborting me...".
If the Democrats weren't, at their core, incompetent to lead by virtue of their philosophical ideas they would still be in charge.
There was no evil plot, no unseen vast right wing conspiracy. Had the Liberals not lied to get elected then allowed Leftist ideologues to run the government, the Electorate would not have been shocked back to the center.
Trump isn't a Republican. He's not far right. It was just the reaction by a citizenry that became absolutely horrified by the head-snapping change in direction of the government. Rule by decree. An environment where the individual was no longer paramount to the collective. A place where rights and freedoms are not limited by law, but granted by law.
And what's up with this inside government subversion thingy? Man! That's scary.
1
Dear Chuck:
The "bipartisan" Senate couldn't manage to block a single Trump cabinet nominee, including DeVos, Pruitt and Carson. Do you think your colleagues Collins and Murkowski will wake up for their Rip Van Winkle-like slumber in time for the Supreme Court vote? Will Senator McCain still be able to vote? And if so, how will he cast it?
Your ability to persuade your colleagues across the aisle to do ANYTHING has been shown to be zero. And Republicans have shown they don't care what their gerrymandered constituents think, or they would have resisted Trump 100 times already.
So the die is cast. The next Democratic presidents (if there are any) will have to deal with 5 or 6 Horsemen of the Apocalypse, just like FDR had to in the 1930s.
By the way, where's your full-court press to improve your party's standing in the mid-term elections, now just a few months off? Haven't heard a thing. If you stand for anything besides Not Trump, this might be a good time to start letting the electorate know about it.
7
The thing about it is, it's an either/or. There are at least 6 Senators up for re-election in states Trump won by over 10 points. If they vote against Trump's Supreme Court nominee, they're all toast. There are 3 more Democratic Senators in purple states that have an edge now, but become vulnerable. The Republicans only have 2 really vulnerable Senators, and voting with Trump won't hurt them at the polls. Schumer knows that it's either fight for a moderate Supreme Court justice now, or fight for control of the Senate in November.
Poster avrds. made a good point. Have the dems suggest a moderate conservative that has a history of voting to keep ACA legal and at least first term abortions legal.
Forget about somebody who is gonna ordain that 50% of all CEOs should be female or gays and blacks should be compensated for yrs. of discrimination.
Thanks to the dems for running an identity obsessed, east coast establishment liberal (half conservative and half super social engineer) instead of somebody akin to Bernie, we now have the horror story Trump.
Join with moderates that can agree upon things like national health coverage, basic right to first term abortion etc. etc.
3
I am sick about what is going on in our country. We used to think of ourselves as the good guys of the world, now we are just hucksters looking to make a buck. The majority of American people are good. The majority of American people want to be the good guys. But the majority of American people are conditioned to be swayed by TV, radio or Twitter not real newspaper journalists. I am sick of Democrats explaining away the failure of their message to those voters who voted for the current president. Who are they, why do they hate "liberals"? why did they abandon us? Was it fear, was it about economics, was it racism, religious beliefs or identity politics?
It is time somebody from the Democrats start to address them and explain what being a good guy is all about. Address the concerns that for some reason allows those good people to hate the families that come here like their families did generations ago and were treated poorly. I have realized recently that many people consider themselves "Conservative" Meaning honorable, honest, frugal, respectful to women, and willing to serve, eg Joe Biden. When DJT says he is conservative he means he likes the brand to make a buck or get a vote. Instead of damping down hate he riles it up by distortion and lies. Please get someone in the Democratic party that is respected to tweet back, Biden, Obama, Ocasio-Sanchez, somebody that can get the floor. Can't be you or Pelosi. Please, you have to talk to them, not me.
Will you RAISE your voice, please?
Cory Booker is doing a much better job of framing this issue:
No president who is the subject of a criminal investigation should be permitted to appoint a justice until the Mueller report is complete.
Period.
People understand that. It's simple and straightforward.
Why don't you, and every Dem, stand up in Congress and say it again and again and again.
We can't do everything.
We need you to stand for something.
Milquetoast.
6
"Our rights?!"
The major part of Trump's support was from working class white people who will most suffer from state restrictions and bans on abortion as more affluent women will be able to travel to states where it will remain legal.
This is what these people voted for. Why not allow them to have it and see how much it does for them when they have to have unwanted children or turn to illicit abortions.
The problem with that argument is that only 10 per thousand (1%) of pregnant white working class women have an abortion. When you're talking about something that is going to directly affect 1% of the female half of the white population, it's probably not going to be that big of a factor in an election. The economy affects everybody. So does jobs. Health care. Transportation. Access to high-speed internet. Immigration. The cost of prescriptions. Gun control affects the 33% or so nationwide who own guns. Even the opioid crisis directly affects maybe 5% of the population. Abortion is one of those issues that we may have a strong opinion on, but doesn't directly affect 99.5% of us either way.
https://www.guttmacher.org/infographic/2017/abortion-rates-race-and-ethn...
First time I agree with Chuckie which is why it is so important to support Trump’s nomination.
Senator Schumer:
You have 2 paths you can take to block Trump appointing another TRULY activist Justice like Gorsuch, Alito, and Scalia. You can hope to rely on the good will and sensibilities of GOP Sens Murkowski and Collins, and on Red State Democrats at risk in November who may feel they have to cave to survive (though that rarely works) in order to maintain 51 "No" votes. That is highly risky.
Or you can give up on expecting Leader McConnell to ever play fair, to ever not be a hypocrite, to recognize that he not only plays hardball, but throws illegal spitballs and beanballs. He plays dirty, and to win, no matter the cost, no matter the damage. We are in a cold war, and the so-called "decorum" of the Senate vanished when McConnell said years ago that his goal was to prevent the re-election of President Obama and was obstructionist from the day Obama took office. Sadly, you have no alternative but to do the same. You must shut down the Senate when McConnell attempts to bring ANY nominee to the floor.
Yes, I know the nuclear option, to refuse unanimous consent on every item, is obstructionist. I know you worry that we'll lose votes in November. Maybe, but the Democratic base is looking for courage, is looking for leaders in our party to stand firm, not cave in, not try to appease Republicans any longer. And why? Because we, the Base, KNOW McConnell will NOT compromise only appeasement! An election is 2 years. A SCOTUS justice can serve 40 years. JUST SAY NO!
6
The civility of the Senate is long dead. Remember when Sen. Warren was criticizing a Presidential nominee and Sen. McConnell used a parliamentary trick to gag her because the nominee was still a sitting Senator? How do you plan to be civil when McConnell OPENLY and repeatedly defies the Constitution's requirement that the Senate give advice and consent on Presidential appointments?
Was McConnell civil to Warren? Was McConnell civil when he blocked Merrick Garland even getting a hearing for a year?
If McConnell can get away with stealing a Supreme Court Justice, why won't you do the same and block ANY nominee?
The time for courage is now. McConnell never compromises. Therefore, any agreement with him is acquiescence and APPEASEMENT!
I guarantee you that the base of the Democratic party won't forgive you appeasing McConnell and Trump. Ask future former Congressman Crowley.
1
While it may make some people feel good, bashing Trump is not the way to Democratic victory in the mid-terms and 2020.
Democratic leadership has become ossified and preoccupied with attacking Trump instead of developing new leadership and a platform that will appeal to a substantial majority of voters.
We know how Democrats and Trumpers will vote, so we should focus on undecideds and moderates, who will likely control the outcome of most of the mid-terms. Calling Ivanka Trump a vile name, saying that Barron Trump should be locked up with pedophiles, and tossing a senior White House staffer out of a restaurant can only convince the undecideds and moderates to vote for Trump and Republicans because Democrats appear to be wacky and disgusting.
There is no need to slither into the muck with the Trumpers; we can win in November (and 2020) if we offer strong candidates and a positive platform that meets the needs of the great majority of Americans, including the many voters who felt ignored in 2016.
3
Mr. Schumer, you seem to think a number of Republican senators have spines, all evidence to the contrary. I sincerely hope you are right, but unfortunately thus far their actions and and inactions -- their subservience to their noxious Dear Leader -- lead to the opposite conclusion.
2
I doubt a party that stole two presidential elections, a supreme court seat, and undemocratically occupies the house of representatives is going to capitulate on their ultimate goal: using the supreme court to legislate from the bench and help install their Christian-Taliban theocratic state. Indeed, perhaps it's high time fence-sitting and apathetic voters get a healthy dose of reality and experience the consequences of their inaction, and nothing would be a better example than 10 or so years trapped under a highly conservative, partisan supreme court.
I had hoped that 8 years of obstructing the Obama administration would have shown how unAmerican and unpatriotic the GOP actually is, but no, most "citizens" (and I use that term in its most empty, banal and formally legalistic way) have no interest in upholding their part of a democracy: informed participation. They took their freedoms and social progress for granted. They bought into the fallacy of Individualism. They believed the hype that hard work results in success (money!). And now they will see that hard work results in more work with less pay; that a police state has been brewing and will quickly be implemented; that libertarian freedoms only apply to white Christian males; that money equals speech and those without money are therefore politically mute. To reverse this travesty will take generations.
Surely this is the height of injustice. Just as surely, most people must learn the hard way.
2
Schumer is up to the usual democrat scare tactics every time Republicans have the opportunity to appoint a new Justice. The sky is falling, and the country is going to fall into a black hole. They fail to remember the days when a very conservative Judge like Scalia was approved 97-0. The lefties have relied on activist Judges to do what they could not get done in the Congress. So maybe with a solid 5-4 conservative bent on the scotus and more conservative Judges on lower courts, there will be the need to go back to the days when Compromise was not a dirty word, and the Harris’ and Warrens are less important, though I’m certain they will continue to be the Senates nagging left.
1
Senator Schumer, in one sentence you have summed up the importance of keeping a relatively balanced court: "Whoever fills Justice Kennedy’s seat will join an evenly divided court with the ability to affect the laws of the United States and the rights of its citizens for generations."
"For generations" is frightening and brings me back to the issue of term limits. Two years for Congressmen, four years for Presidents, six years for Senators and no limit on Justices ??? How ridiculous is that? In light of Trump's destruction of so many of the good qualities of democracy, having a lifelong supporter on the bench would give a long life to his destructiveness.
Congress must stand up against a pro-Trump appointee. Our future depends on it.
2
I understand there is a risk to Roe. And I truly appreciate Chuck's unwavering protection of children. What I can't seem to reconcile is why he would advocate for the destruction of children who are on their way here. The only conclusion I have been able to come up with is that he knows those children can't vote to keep him in his cushy $174,000 per year job. It's just terrible. My gut tells me his State of New York will keep abortion even if the US doesn't. So for him to pen this as some sort of a crisis is disingenuous and mean spirited towards those that care about the about to be born.
1
Unfortunately, this is the type of "leadership" I have come to expect from Senator Schumer: a NY Times Op-Ed.
This will do approximately nothing to keep Trump from moving forward with his judge nomination straight out of A Handmaiden's Tale, nor will it keep a single Republican Senator from going along with it.
What would the Tea Party do? You remember, that faux grassroots movement from 10 years ago that resulted in a Democratic slaughtering in the midterms, with unfounded but extremely effective tales of "death panels?" What would your counterpart, Mitch Connell do? You remember, that guy who just stole a SCOTUS seat because you are the rest of the Party were so sure that President Clinton would get to fill the seat? What possible mechanism would he pull to stop the nomination? Because I am 100% convinced he would find a way to do this, while you spend your time preaching to the choir in the NYTimes opinion section.
Senator Schumer, we need Congressional leadership who actually knows how to fight. We are so sick of watching the other team - despite having fewer votes and unpopular policies - continue to win because they know how to play politics in the age of Trump. Wake up. Learn how to fight. Or get out of the way and let someone who does lead.
4
I am really tired of the poor leadership by Chuck Schumer. Give the job to someone else. There are plenty of competent men and women out there who could do a better job as spokesperson for the Democratic party. At the rate the Democratic is going they are going to lose in the November election. What does that tell you?
3
I would strongly recomend that Pres. Trump hold off on replacing Justice Kennedy, until after the DNC,Inc receives its unsuspected, crushing blow in November. I suspect that nearly every democrat that wins in November will be of the type willing to work WITH the President....not against him. This is what the old guard DNC Political Hacks do not understand........After November it seems likely that Ms. Ginsberg will finally retire also......meaning that Trump will have even more leverage. I can see the deal to make appointments happen quickly..........and even a spot for poor ole maligned Garland Merrick, if Trump gets to appoint two judges. Maybe even finally get the Federal Circuit Courts staffed to a manageable level. Shame on the Senate for holding up these appointments.....Mr. Schumer.
1
Mr. Schumer, determined to fight any proposal coming from Republicans, no matter what (and after years of complaining about obstruction of President Obama's initiatives), now claims, with a bit of hyperbole, that our "rights" hand in the balance. Well, our rights are provided by the Constitution, and the Supreme Court certainly interprets it.
But will the "right of workers to organize" be eliminated? Perhaps the power of public unions to compel membership or dues from nonmembers. But I suspect unions that offer benefits clear enough to members to gain their support will still be in business. Will Americans lose the right to "marry who they love"? Or "the right to vote?" Americans may not now marry who they love. I assume you refer to gay marriage, which no one is really challenging any more. The right to vote? This is absurd. Perhaps illegal aliens will be denied, but then, that's not what you wrote.
We are still talking about Roe because it was decided on an absurd principle (does my right to privacy mean I can sell my organs? Practice prostitution? Jump off a bridge?) and because a majority of Americans find abortion to be repugnant.
But then, that's probably why Hillary is flacking books and not setting up a new server.
3
Trump will choose another outrageous nominee to stoke his base, and the Senate will go "nuclear" and approve his choice. It's a done deal.
The only peaceful way out of the black hole we've gotten ourselves into is to vote ourselves out of it. Four months and counting. Are we all helping at the local level, where it really matters?
Our rights are in grave danger! Thankfully, we have President Trump and the Republicans working overtime to protect them.
2
Schumer is just part of the giant echo chamber this country has become. Schumer to the Left. Hannity to the Right. My ears are ringing.
Oh Senator, please give it up already. Kennedy, O’Connor, Souter, were appointed by Republican presidents, two of whom were appointed by Reagan, and they did not vote to overturn Roe. Roberts, a Bush appointee, saved the ACA, albeit after changing his vote. Let me know when any liberal, Democrat Justice ever voted with conservatives on a case of consequence. The dogmatic, ideologues are on the left. There should be no litmus tests. Your party started this with Bork, Thomas, and dingy Harry Reid getting rid of the filibuster for lower court justices. If you had let Gorsuch go through, you still would have a filibuster, and the chance for a consensus nominee who could get 60 votes. Trumps nominee will Ge confirmed as will the next nominee when a vacancy occurs.
1
If Roe v Wade goes back to the states, the women in those unfortunate states run by old white men and the women who love them will suffer the consequences. This is what results when you don’t get out to vote, vote for Trump, or vote for someone who is certain not to win.
3
LOL once they are in that voting booth, the husband has no idea who they actually voted for anyway. But besides that, are you saying that women are so subservient that they just go along with whatever their husbands say? You were never at my house, evidently. My parents never painted one room, because they couldn't agree on the color. It was left primer gray. For 40 years.
Until the Democratic party decides it wants to win elections again Schumer is just whistling in the wind. Step 1 is for Schumer and the rest of the Democrats 'army of the dead' to step aside. Righteous anger is not a sustainable strategy, 'resistance' is a hollow cry and socialism as a theme will only make things worse at the ballot box. Get serious about understanding what Americans are thinking or get used to living in a conservative nation. Start here; Trump won 29% of the Latino vote. Explain that and you'll have made a start.
2
You exhibit a poor thought process sir, almost as poor as your leadership of the democratic minority in the Senate. If Row were to be found to be unconstitutional the states would then legalize abortion as was in process before Roe was approved. While there might be some sate by state restrictions, abortion would still be available. Likewise for healthcare, Obamacare did not work, it never delivered the cost savings promised. It is time to remove it and try something else that is affordable for those without health insurance.
3
The truth is that nothing is going to work as long as we have fewer doctors than many third-world countries. The AMA is a powerful union. It's that old pre-Milton Friedman economic theory called supply and demand.
Given an increasing demand for medical care (aging population and mass immigration) and a constant supply of doctors, the price of doctors will rise (increased medical care costs). Likewise, a monopoly will provide less services at a higher cost than an industry with multiple competitors. The local Humana hospital only agreed to open that fine new hospital if the county closed the local non-profit county hospital that was aging, but charged $50 per day for a room, instead of over $1,000, and $250 for a trip to the ER, instead of $5,000+
Not so respectfully, Senator Schumer, the time for you, your Democratic colleagues in the Senate, in the House, and former President Obama to have "manned up" to fight the good fight against the Republican Party was when Mitch McConnell blocked Obama's appointment of Justice Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court during Obama's final year in office. THAT was when our rights "hung in the balance." As usual with the Democratic Party, when it comes to protecting us from the predations of the Republican Party, it's too little too late. The horse is already out of the barn, Senator Schumer. Our "rights," which you profess to care so much about, have already been stripped from us. They've already been trampled upon. Senator Schumer, please leave office quickly so that others with more "intestinal fortitude" may fight for the rights and interests of the Bottom 90% of Americans. Don't worry: As you know, you will have permanent employment opportunities with your base on Wall Street upon leaving office. (Nice pension and health care benefits, too, or so I hear.) Please tell Hillary and Obama that I said, “Hello” when you see them.
2
It is ludicrous to claim that woman has unlimited right to chose after pregnancy without any other considerations. How many politicians would allow a pregnant lady to take alcohol or even soda with caffeine that would harm the health of the baby? Probably none. That means women do not have unlimited right to chose? Can there be restriction on abortion for sex selection? Can we have restriction on abortion after certain period? Is there any right for men who are responsible for pregnancy before women do abortion? Is there any interest for society for having enough and healthy babies? Probably the best choice is to have legal and safe abortions with maximum restrictions that can be acceptable to each state.
1
The Left claims a monopoly on adherence to Science, but that claim falls apart when one looks at abortion from a clinical scientific viewpoint.
A being is defined by its DNA. A fetus's DNA is different from its mother's.
A fetus's bloodstream and other systems operate entirely independently of its mother's.
Unless uninterrupted by humans (either rich white doctors or rich white pharma execs) a fetus will generally carry to term. Abortion is man's artificial interruption of a natural process.
Respect science? Then you must be pro-life.
2
Dear Chuck
Why not lead a return to more democratic values? I’ll help you out as you have seem to forgotten them. Here’s a short list to start.
1. Single payer healthcare
2. Free public college for all
3. Fully funding public education
4. Fully supporting CHOICE, either women have full agency over their bodies or we are second class citizens.
5. And lastly,how to pay for this and make it bi-partisan. Let’s bring back the Eisenhower tax rates and let’s cut the pentagon budget by 3%.
Chuck, you need to show some real leadership. Not the wish washy stuff you have been putting forth. So far you have been more of a mouthpiece for GOP lite.
8
Many of the issues addressed in this article seem to be by-products of a dysfunctional Democratic Party.
Chuck,
Roe v. Wade of course yes, but stop trying to defend a very poor band-aid known as the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare, though he was mostly in Hawaii and removed while it was being formulated).
If you haven't noticed recently, people want single-payer universal health care—like Bernie Sanders bravely promulgated while you and your "establishment" missed the boat in 2016.
A physician MD
5
This is about as passionate and fiery as a tax audit. My greatest fear is that our Democratic "leadership" will cave out of some misguided, and now obviously outdated, sense of professional comity with their Republican counterparts. We are on the verge of total collapse as pertains to the working of our democracy. This is no time for make-nice, milquetoast finger wagging. Anything and everything should be on the table now.
1
Please do not use "conservative" to describe the right-wing oligarchs, their white-supremacist supporters, the anti-wage earner funders, or these regressive mysogynist judicial nominees. There is NOTHING conservative about them. The public, viscerally approves of "conservative" judges and disapproves of "liberal" judges. That's about as deep as it goes. Stop giving these radicals their own frame.
1
Senator.
Your donors won, your mission ought to be accomplished. You still have your seat (for now). Oh, you want McConnell's job? Maybe work on making that Better Deal better, and talk about that - jobs, wages, healthcare - instead of pointing out various squirrels. And clean out your deadwood, or you can let the voters do it for you.
I agree with most everything Senator Chuck says here. Unfortunately, he is the one of the last people I want to be delivering this message. Not only did he (along with Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Schultz) fuel this entire problem by their cowardly and cynical distancing of the Democratic party from President Obama in 2010, but he has proven to be a singularly uninspiring, intellectually barren leader. He is more irritating than persuasive to most Democrats and moderate Republicans.
4
Abortion needs to be limited and not abolished.
"The fetus is so defective that it cannot have a decent life" is an acceptable reason for abortion.
"I broke up with my boyfriend" is not.
I want to see a judge who understands the difference.
2
Well Chuck, our rights are now at risk because your party is inept at winning elections. The great irony is: over the past 20-30 years, the Democrats have tried to play both sides. They've tried to claim to be fighting for the middle class and poor, while at the same time buddying up to and catering to large corporations/lobbyists, e.g. big pharma, big health insurance, banks etc. The result? They've controlled congress only 4 out of the past 24 years (winning in 06 - 08 practically only because of black swan events such as the financial crisis and war in Iraq), and the latest result is the courts will continue to be pro-cronyist, anti-middle class etc. The swamp is now deeper and more entrenched than ever.
Meanwhile, they've decided that continuing with yourself and Pelosi at the helm of the party is the answer, demonstrating that they haven't learned a thing from 2014 - 2016. They still think buddying up to the DC lobbyist class is the answer. The incompetence of the Democratic party isn't stunning anymore...it's just downright pathetic.
Here's to hoping for another black swan event and crisis. It's the only way your party will win an election. We sure know you can't win on policy and appeal to the middle class, working poor, and small business.
5
If and when, if ever again the democrats hold the three branches of government, they should at once toss Gorsuch out. He is an illegal justice. He knows it and so does anyone with a sense of fair play and justice. A conservative act of thievery was enacted by McConnell who literally stole Obama’s right to choose. If we allow this to stand, then it can be said there truly is no rule of law in this country. No constitution worth honoring. Shame on those who allowed this travesty. McConnell should be arrested for subverting the constitution as leader of the senate.
1
About whose rights are we talking, Senator? In America - Center, Right and left - all have rights. The press (the NYT, first and foremost) characterize all but the left as the “Radical Right.” There are persuasive arguments for both sides.
"At a strategy session held over lunch last week, Senate Democrats settled on a careful strategy for the coming Supreme Court confirmation battle. They would drop their demands that Republicans not appoint a replacement for Mr. Kennedy until after the midterm elections, senators decided, and instead would highlight the threat to abortion rights and health care to try to mobilize opposition to Mr. Trump’s appointment."
There's a shocker! Democrats dropping their demands? Really? After what, three days? The Folding Card Table Party always folds. That's why you don't win, Senator: you don't FIGHT. You are opposition party: OPPOSE. True you are in the minority thanks to the venality and monumental incompetence of the DNC, and a little help from the Russians, and Republican treason, which you could make more of an issue of. (A ten year old could devise better messaging than the Democrats.) But surely you have been a Senator long enough to know a few stalling tactics, a few procedural tricks to slow things down? No? You could also at least feign outrage, and not come a dry dry cleaner on the Upper West Side.
Republicans don't drop demands. The political prostitutes of the Koch Brothers go to war for their owners,like maniacs. One widely despised GOP miscreant senator closed down the government over funding Planned Parenthood. You don't seem able to close a door! Drop the civility that gets us nowhere, stop trying to reason or negociate with ideologues and fascists, and FIGHT!
1
don’t just tell your senator not to vote on a nominee. Tell him to do everything in his power to pressure McConnell to not allow a vote until after the new Congress is seated. pressure your senator to refuse to go along with senator McConnell‘s hypocrisy. Phone calls, emails, letters, newspaper articles to keep pressure on. And then vote.
1
Mr. Schumer, it’s time for you and Nancy Pelosi to step aside. We are in a terrible mess and don’t need another opinion piece to tell us what we already know.
2
This pious statement is from the guy who sat on his hands when in March 2016 Republican Senators refused to consider Obama's Supreme Court nominee.
Obama and secondarily Schumer didn't have the votes for a Senate confirmation, but they had the right for that nomination to be considered. They should have been to court to challenge Republican obstruction in a heartbeat.
12
Because as a lawyer he knew he didn't have a case.
Query? wouldn't any S Ct appointee have to recuse in any matter regarding a case involving presidential malfeasance? If not, this should be a question for any nominee.
2
We can change the terms of this debate.
The Citizen United case defined political corruption in the most narrow terms, as quid pro quo.
Well, the list of 25 from the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society all accepted money and other things of value, including advancement to the brink of the Supreme Court, in return for their specific commitments to think in certain ways agreeable to those two organizations. The list of 25 is a list "we own these, pick one of ours."
That is quid pro quo corruption.
First, explore the details in confirmation hearings.
Second, make it clear that if they are appointed anyway, they will be impeached at the first opportunity. Just knowing that will impact the individuals, the Court itself, and the process, even if it isn't clear how soon they can be impeached.
Chuck Schumer would not want to do this. The current establishment of both parties are so deeply owned by their donor interests that this approach could take them all down. That is another plus for this approach.
So demonstrate exactly how these people are corrupt, reveal the details of their quid pro quo, and speak up on impeachment. If that means Democrats must clean up their own acts, they can do that too. Bernie did it.
12
Of course there is the moral imperative that we allow woman to make choices about their own bodies and life, but there is a more practical issue. Forcing woman to have children they are not ready to care for seemingly results in higher crime rates 18 years on. The corollary was found in Freakonomics, which showed that 18 years after Roe V. Wade, crime rates dropped dramatically. Of course there are arguments that the rate dropped because of other factors, but it is safe to say the society and children are better off when mothers are ready to have children.
6
Senator Schumer, as the leader of the Democratic Caucus, in advance of Senate confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court nominee, must give notice that this disingenuous "Art of the Dodge" tactic routinely resorted to by modern day nominees will no longer be accepted. In general, such past "performances" always left a disturbing public impression that high court nominees were deliberately hiding important information from examining Senators, intentionally interfering with their constitutional responsibility and duty to "advise and consent" on these very nominations. The truthfulness of these candidates was damaged before they even were confirmed!
Now, with Trump's specific upcoming nominee there is an additional, highly compelling reason for his Supreme Court nominee not be allowed to employ "The Dodge". Trump has gone on the record and stated, explicitly and implicitly, that his nominee will overturn both Roe and the A.C.A. As is often stated in any court by cross-examining counsel, he has thereby "opened the door" to a further probing inquiry on these subject matters.
Democrats must not allow any "show hearing" to go forward, employing each and every parliamentary procedure available to them in addition to educating the general public why they are prepared to do so. Furthermore, any Federalist Society members involved in the critical vetting and selection of Trump's nominees must be available for questioning at the confirmation hearings, by subpoena if necessary.
10
With all due respect Mr. Schumer, but one of the reasons Americans fined themselves in this world-turned-upside-down mess is in part due to your own and Ms. Pelosi's weak and uninspired leadership in both the Senate and the House.
With the Midterm Elections only a few months away, I don't see the Democrats offering any credible alternative or coherent plan of action to what Trump and the Republicans are peddling. Which is sad and consequential indeed. Especially in light of the potential outcomes you listed in this article.
8
He tells readers to call their senators; how much more coherent could he be? That is really the only action he has available now.
1
What about "Saving our health care, social safety net, democracy and women's right to choose" - all fought for by Democrats, is not coherent or credible enough for you? Wake up, please!
1
During the 2010 and 2014 Midterms, a lot of the Democrats in the House and Senate basically retreated from supporting President Obama and the values you list. Instead of standing by Obamacare, an worthwhile and significant (albeit flawed) accomplishment, supporting Obama's push for immigration reform...they cut and ran for cover putting their own political survival above the values they supposedly cherish.
Some Democratic candidates went as far as to disavow Obama or downplay any links to him and his policies. That smelled like and was cowardice. With predictable consequences and results.
If Democrats ever hope to win, drop the holier-than-thou attitude, look in the mirror and take stock of all the mistakes and miss steps done.
Until then, if this same lukewarm and scattered narrative continues to come from the Democrats, get used to being outside looking in...
Even in this op ed Schumar shows that like every Democratic leader before him, he will pull his punches, trying to look "reasonable" instead of doing what is needed-fighting tooth and nail. No, we should not call our legislator and tell them "not to vote for someone from Trump's pre-ordained list." We must call our legislators and tell them that no vote must be permitted until after the swearing-in of the victors in the November election. And Schumar and Pelosi must use every possible tactic to make this happen.
32
"...eviscerate affordable access to health care for millions of Americans."
Americans have no "right" to healthcare--that's not "a right that hangs in the balance." It never was a "right," and, short of a Constitutional amendment, it won't be.
But we absolutely have a right to make our own purchasing decisions--except when that right is stripped from us by a Congress of Democrats who demanded that we buy health insurance that meets not our own needs, as we ourselves see them, but rather as Washington bureaucrats dictate. And there is absolutely no honest Constitutional justification for the existence of Obamacare--it should be repealed in its entirety; if the states want to enact their own state versions of it, that's up to them.
As to abortions, it offends me that any government would presume to dictate to pregnant women what choices they may or may not make. At the same time, the 14th Amendment "justification" for Roe v Wade is no more than a blatant evasion of the intent of the 10th Amendment. Roe v Wade should be repealed and the decision "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"--preferably, the latter.
And, of course, what Senator Schumer quite deliberately fails to mention is that any Supreme Court candidate that would meet his approval would also want to gut our absolute Constitutional right "to keep and bear arms. Sorry, Senator, but all Constitutional rights are created equal, and all should be defended equally.
9
The Tenth Amendment is trumped in many regards by the later 14th Amendment. It is a weak argument to pretend the 14th Amendment was never adopted. The extent to which the later Amendment controls, and what it controls, is subject to dispute, but there is no question that if there is conflict between the two, the later one governs.
If the authors of the 14th Amendment had intended to reverse or limit the 10th, they would have, and could have, explicitly done so. They didn't, ergo that was not their intent.
"The Tenth Amendment is trumped in many regards by the later 14th Amendment."
Mr. Douglas, this statement is false, in my opinion.
But please, I am open minded, provide examples whereby the 14th "trumps" the 10th.
As a white, straight, 73 year old man, I have seen a lot in my liberal political activism. And as some other readers aptly noted, the Democratic party has created self-inflicted damage to party effectiveness at the polls. Most notably, far-left voters making protest votes against the party's favored candidates, and/or not voting at all as a protest "vote." That's how Hillary lost the Electoral College after winning the popular vote by more than 3 million votes.
Furthermore, progressive values are more multi-dimensional with several issues on the table. Whereas, the conservatives keep thier messages very simple, as well as fact-free.
What are we up against? Conservative think tanks such as the Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation have spent decades developing a party of lock-step far-right conservatism catching Dems off-guard. For Republican politicians preferring to march to their own drummer, fortunes are spent to replace them with intellectual dunces like Louie Gomert, Virgina Fox and Steven King.
By contrast, the Democratic Party is a philosophical and cultural hodgepodge all under one big tent, and it has been like herding cats for party leaders like Schumer and Palosi.
We are the party of ideas and solutions. We have also been the party cleaning up the messes left by departing Republicans in Congress and the White House.
November will be the biggest test for Dems: How to work as unfied team for a change, to increase Democratic traffic to the polls.
21
So true. Democrats need to focus on winning, not arguing over every dang issue.
The greatest self-inflicted damage the Democratic party has done is insisting on identity politics as their under-girding philosophy and in some cases the entirety of their plan.
Mr O - with all due respect, your post is indicative of the thoughts of many Americans - the 'other side' is dumb, has no ideas, and are a monolith of thought (see first paragraph).
It is pretty clear that the Democratic party is quite unified if you look at the voting patterns - https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddavenport/2017/12/13/a-growing-cancer-...
Although I disagree with your interpretations of a woman’s right to chose and the protections of the ACA from a constitutional standpoint, your arguments are colorable nonetheless, and I acknowledge that. Not so with your argument concerning the Second Amendment which, unlike arguments concerning a woman’s right to choose and the ACA, on the surface, abides little nuance (all the more reason I conclude SCOTUS’s interpretation of it is indefensible). You should read the Second Amendment. Because I’m mystified. I’ve yet to meet any members of that “well-regulated militia” whose freedom to bear arms should not be abridged. But maybe you know some to whom you can introduce me?
What about Trump appointing a judge who will approve hyper-partisan gerrymandering, installing permanent Republican majorities in the House and in state legislatures all over the country? To me, that is even more significant.
9
Do you not think if that were to happen that there would be an uprising because we no longer trust our elections. I already do not trust our elections. I'm wondering now how the Republicans will thwart the majority this fall.
1