Shameless: Schumer's Hilarious, Desperate Flip Flop on SCOTUS Nominees and the 'Ginsburg Standard'

Posted: Jul 11, 2018 12:30 PM

When you're going to be a hack, you might as well be a shameless hack.  Liberals are humiliating themselves over President Trump's latest Supreme Court nomination, trafficking in insane conspiracy theories, and launching bogus, half-cocked ("extreme distortion") attacks, as part of a frenzied "kitchen sink" approach.  They'll grasp at any straw to oppose Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation, even as some key red state Senate Democrats are taking pains to avoid talking about the issue.  The Associated Press describes the cacophony of resistance and discord:

Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, says it's all about health care. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., worries about the impact on the special counsel investigation. And Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., sees an assault that could set women's rights back decades. There's so much for Democrats to dislike about Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump's Supreme Court pick. And that may be the problem. In the hours after the Republican president tapped the conservative jurist, Democrats struggled to unify behind a clear and coherent message to combat the nomination, which could shift the court to the right for decades. They're energized, outraged and ready to fight. But what, exactly, is their argument to voters?...It's an all-too-familiar political challenge for Democrats, who've left voters confused in the Trump era about what the party stands for beyond simply opposing the president. And in this case, the muddled messaging threatens to dampen a new surge of voter enthusiasm just a few months before [the] midterm elections.

As for Schumer's new talking point that the Supreme Court fight is all, or something, it's a line so unserious that even the Senate's most moderate Republican couldn't help but dismiss it with a rhetorical eyeroll:

Someone should inform Schumer that the Supreme Court doesn't craft healthcare policy.  While they're at it, they should tell Schumer that one of the few Kavanaugh rulings that some conservatives are upset over involved, um, Obamacare.  So it's a stupid point on two levels.  Sen. Collins also went on to say that Kavanaugh is obviously qualified for the job and reinforced the so-called 'Ginsburg standard' -- pioneered by leftist icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- under which Supreme Court nominees decline to discuss specific issues or cases that could come before them on the bench (though, as a former top ACLU attorney, she was willing to talk about abortion):

It is rather ironic, isn't it?  And Collins is certainly sounding like a 'yes' vote in these early stages, isn't she?  Anyway, here's Schumer flip-flopping on that standard, too, via a floor speech earlier in the week:

Considering the ample evidence that President Trump will only select a nominee who will undermine protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions, give greater weight to corporate interests than the interests of our citizens, no matter what precedent says, and vote to overturn Roe v. Wade – the next nominee has an obligation – a serious and solemn obligation – to share their personal views on these legal issues...

And here was Schumer just last year

"There is a grand tradition, that I support, that you can’t ask a judge who was nominated or a potential judge who was nominated for a judgeship about a specific case that might come before them," he said.

A "grand tradition" to a new "serious and solemn obligation" that flies directly in the face of said tradiiton. This guy.  Allahpundit scorches Schumer over this nonsense, noting how "this makes twice now that he’s been hobbled by a Democrat setting a judicial precedent which seemed clever at the time, only to have it detonate later right in the party’s faces."  It was expedient for Ginsburg at the time, so it became a "grand tradition."  But now that it's been benefiting GOP nominees for years, Chuck is having second thoughts.  The first piece of judicial precedent turnabout, by the way, is this one, of course.  AP goes on to expose the duplicitous tap-dance Democrats frequently perform on the issue of "settled law" and stare decisis.  Nominees must respect the precedents liberals like, they insist -- but surely they don't believe the Court's conservatives were wrong to overturn the longstanding Korematsu ruling (on Japanese internment) earlier this year, do they?  And they'd undoubtedly jump for joy if a future left-leaning court upended the stare decisis of precedents set in cases like Heller and Citizens United, right?  

Why, it's almost as if Democrats are entirely comfortable changing their rules, demands, and tactics depending on their immediate political interests.  After you read this piece explaining to Democrats how they've got no one to blame but themselves for their current predicament, I'll leave you with this.  Oops: