Schumer, Warren Among Democrats Who Refuse to Meet With Amy Coney Barrett
Democrats: This is all illegitimate!! Me: How do I Constitution?!
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Elizabeth Warren will not meet with SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett.
Warren would not even refer to Barrett by name. She refers to Barrett as “Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.”
I will not be meeting with Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee. We need to treat this nomination like the illegitimate power grab it is. pic.twitter.com/KwmtQ27miP
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) September 29, 2020
Why do you hate women, Sen. Warren?
This is not an illegitimate power grab. Trump is president until we swear in a new president in January. The Constitution, which you vowed to uphold, is pretty clear on this topic.
Schumer also used the illegitimate talking point:
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Sunday that he will not meet with Barrett, becoming the most prominent Senate Democrat to spurn a meeting with Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.
At a news conference in New York, Schumer said he doesn’t plan to meet with Barrett “because I believe, first, that the whole process has been illegitimate, and, second, because she has already stated that she is for overturning the ACA.”
Schumer told the ladies on The View that Barrett’s “views are so pronounced that I don’t think meeting with her would change anything.”
Then can we skip the hearings and just go straight to the vote?
Sen. Richard Blumenthal won’t meet with Barrett because she apparently wants to deny people healthcare. Oh, it’s also illegitimate.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand decided not to meet with Barrett because…can you guess? ILLEGITIMATE! Shocker, right?
Illegitimate? Article II, section ii (emphasis mine):
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
Sen. Dick Durbin has a spine and decency because he said he would meet Barrett via a phone call to keep with social distancing protocols:
“I’ve met with every Supreme Court nominee since I’ve been in the Senate. I will extend that courtesy, if she requests it, for at least a socially distanced, safe meeting, perhaps over the phone,” Durbin said during an interview with ABC News’s “This Week.”
Barrett met with some Republican senators on Tuesday:
Barrett will also be visited by Senators Mike Crapo, Chuck Grassley and Mike Lee. And she’ll meet with Senator Rick Scott, Senate Majority Whip John Thune and Senator Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
“We believe the Senate has an opportunity here for a fair and respectful consideration,” Pence told reporters ahead of his meeting with Barrett and McConnell. “We urge our Democratic colleagues in the Senate to take the opportunity to meet with Judge Barrett, and as the hearing goes forward to provide the kind of respectful hearing the American people expect.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
So Princpess Pouting Prude and Senator Chuck You Schumer won’t meet with future Justice Barrett. And Princess Spread Eagle Harris will no doubt have to carry the attack load her own sweet self–or nmybe she will just blow her opportunity. Spread Eagle has done that before. And Sweet Old Di Fi has told her fellow Dims that she just isn’t up to the task of blocking the nomination.
So what we are left with is the tantrums of 3 year olds. Boo Hoo.
Neither Warren or Schumer are worth any of Barrett’s time.
Among the last people any of us would want to meet would be schumer or fauxcahontas.
Think of it this way. She’ll save on deodorizer by not having to remove their communist stench.
Hopefully Justice Barrett will be deciding vote when Schumer’s trial for treason, aiding and abetting enemies of the United States, and corruption goes to the Supreme Court.
THAT would be justice…
“Then can we skip the hearings and just go straight to the vote?” Yes! libs can then do their freak show outdoors in the street.
Hear. Hear.
All that matters is whether she meets with Collins, Murkowski, Romney, etc. and whether that meeting is enough to make a positive difference in their plans.
Romney, believe it or not, has already committed to vote yes on Amy Coney Barrett. Which I hear really shocked the rest of the caucus.
So McConnell already has the votes locked up to confirm her.
My understanding is that he has committed to Vote yes to have a vote for her confirmation. He has not yet committed to his actual vote on confirmation. Has that changed?
From what I’ve been reading he has committed not only to a vote but filling the seat. I take that as a yes.
He must be really hearing from the folks back home.
“We believe the Senate has an opportunity here for a fair and respectful consideration,”
Boy, that’s ignoring reality. You’ll have Harris in a full blown snit, along with Senator “Spartacus” Booker.
Booker’s a bit player now, he’s not running for president again for another 4 years. Heels High Harris, on the other hand, has to showboat a lot to convince her voters that she’s really trying to stop it.
IANAL but…
If you are a graduate of Harvard University’s Law School and had Warren as a professor, consider suing as fraud may have occurred. Warren’s knowledge of the U.S. Constitution appears to be seriously deficient and inadequate for both her previous and current positions.
If you are a citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts expecting skilled representation and statesmanship, I have one word for you – “suckers!”
She’s not saying it’s unconstitutional, she’s just saying it’s illegitimate. She thinks a justice’s legitimacy comes from a certain degree of bipartisanship in the appointment process, so she’s trying to ensure there isn’t any of that. That’s fine, let her do whatever she likes. Barrett will be a justice either way, and she won’t.
“…justice’s legitimacy comes from a certain degree of bipartisanship.”
Methinks you are too kind. Legitimacy and bipartisanship to the left means submission to the standards and control of the left.
Leftist do not use “legitimate” definitions of words, they use newspeak definitions. To a leftist, words are used to convey power not meaning.
Let them hold their breath – figuratively and literally.
Fantastic. Will cut down on the time then
Wow. When Durbin is one of the nicer people in your party, you have a party filled with unprintable scum.
Convene the committee, adjourn the committee. Go straight to a floor vote.
Fine, less time wasted on insipid liberal means we can get to the vote sooner it the yapping Yorkie will schedule it.
We willl be swearing in the present President in Jan 2021… Thank you very much
“shall nominate” is not ambiguous. It is a duty. I wonder if Pelosi could impeach Trump if he did not nominate someone?
Thst sounds… catty.
ACB should consider herself lucky not having to meet with those two Catholic-haters.
The SilentTreatment is a typical tactic of the narcissist–an attempt to gain control and/or demonstrate power.
The fact that this isn’t going straight to a vote is why you shouldn’t be confident ACB gets confirmed before the election. All the GOP squishes have said they would vote, but not whether their vote would be yes or no. The schedule for hearings ensures this gets pushed to post election. All Mittens, or Murkowski, or Gardner, or Collins has to do is vote no. They’ve all punctured the process with their “if the nominee is qualified” caveat. The squish never ends.
All the GOP Senators quickly decided to vote yes on Amy Coney Barrett for three main reasons. First, historical precedent is strongly on their side. Which is why the Dems are screaming illegitimate like stuck pigs. Plus this is payback for Kavanaugh. Finally they aren’t going to play nice and allow the Dems to hijack this because every single one knows if the Dems were in their shoes they’d ram their President’s nominee through come hell or high water.
The Dems might use Senate procedures to delay this for days at most, hours more likely, but the GOP has the votes and they’re going to give the Dems the finger and nominate her.
All except Collins, that is. Even Murkowski is walking back her original “no.”
I should clarify about what I mean by a yes vote. As I explained earlier to healthyguyfsu r.e. Romney, at least 51 GOP Senators have committed to not only proceeding to a vote but also filling the seat.
I don’t see how that can mean anything but voting for Amy Coney Barrett. Of Collins doesn’t even want to have a vote, so if McConnell proceeds to a vote before the election she’ll vote no. Murkowski is a wild card.
But here’s the deal; there’s nothing to stop the GOP caucus from confirming ACB after the election. SCOTUS justices have been nominated nine times after elections (three by lame duck Presidents who lost their elections). Eight of those were confirmed. The Democrats will squeal and I’ll enjoy the sound of their pain.
The fact that the Dems have decided to try to win through massive mail-in ballot fraud and then lawfare, tying things up for months I think would work in the GOP’s favor. They just explain that since the Dem’s strategy to steal this election means we may not know who won, and if it’s anything like the Iowa caucuses we may never know who won. So they won’t know if we’re in a lame duck session. In any case it’s all legal and constitutional. And if the Dems keep bitching just explain when you play stupid election stealing games you win stupid prizes.
“But here’s the deal; there’s nothing to stop the GOP caucus from confirming ACB after the election.”
No. There’s no reason to do anything that dumb. All that does is put the power in the hands of the shrieking idiots who will froth their way through the election and try their best to energize their slothful electorate.
Rule of law. Vacancy arose in the last few months of Trump’s first term. He nominated, we advised and consented, and she’s on the court. No need to make stupid posing gestures or grand seizures on camera. Boom, boom, boom, done. Republicans are the adults in the room, not the party of panic.
The adult in the room is pointing out that the terms of Senators or the President don’t end on election day. By Law the current crop of Senators remain Senators until 3 Jan 2021 no matter how their races turn out. The President remains President until noon on 20 Jan 2021 if he isn’t reelected, or for another four years if he is.
Presidents serve four year terms from the moment they are sworn in at 12:01pm on 20 January the year following the November election, and serve the full four years until noon on 20 Jan the year they leave office.
Senators serve six year terms that begin on 3 Jan and end on 3 Jan. All exercise the full powers of their respective offices up until the last moments of their terms.
That is the “rule of law.” You kowtow to the shrieking mob if you like, georgfelis. That’s dumb; letting the shrieking mob overrule the Constitution. Pretend that their terms end before the Constitution and the rule of law say they do simply because that’s what shrieking mobs demand.
Sarah Palin warned Murkowski that Palin “could see 2020 from my house”.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/sarah-palin-threatens-to-primary-lisa-murkowski-over-scotus-vote-i-can-see-2022-from-my-house
Great! Everybody that refuses to meet with her or already announced their vote forfeits all right to ask questions or make motions on the floor before the vote.
Lets speed this process along.
What are they afraid of? Hmmm? Inquiring minds want to know.
Let’s get this show on the road. Call a vote.
.
I recall the Clarence Thomas hearings as well.
Repubs just need to say……..ready? “Grin and Barrett”.
Karl Rove made a great point yesterday, Jimmy Carter, after he lost the election, nominated on November 13, 1980 Steven Breyer for a position on the US Appeals Court 1st Circuit. He was confirmed 80-10 in just about 4 weeks. So yes, a President can nominate a person at any point in their term even if they are vacating the office.
Karl Rove…
Right message, but wrong messenger.
Observe the blessings she already has bestowed by total strangers. Not having to withstand the radiant hatred from Shroomer or Warren is affirmation of her essential goodness.
May the blood of Christ heal the wicked souls of the socialist democratic party.
Call off the parade, no questions in Committee, it will arrive 2 days early and floor debate/vote can begin immediately.
Nobody cares if Democrats boycott the proceedings. That would actually be preferable.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Elizabeth Warren will not meet with SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett.
Put a TV camera in the room and not even the Marines would be able to keep them out. Schumer particularly never passes up an opportunity to go through his pitiful America’s Got Talent routine whenever there’s a camera in sight.
I don’t see the downside to this.
Any members of the Senate Judiciary Committee should forfeit their right to question Judge Barrett during her nomination hearing.
^ Any members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who refuse to meet with her now should forfeit their right to question Judge Barrett during her nomination hearing.
Oops, I had a momentary brain-biden.
The democrat senators refuse to meet with or vote for Barrett, so stop the “hearings” charade. Go straight to the vote.
Schumer, Warren, and Hirono refusing to meet with Judge Barrett is another example of the pathetic infantilization of our country. Adults whose action are those of children. This has been a noticeable trend is the US for at least the past 10 years.
There is no constitutional requirement to hold hearings, or in fact even to hold a vote. Back in the old days the president would walk over to Capitol Hill with a list of appointments and ask “do you provide acknowledgement and consent?”