Senator Chuck Schumer Is Why Americans Don't Trust Politicians

Warner Todd Huston

Early this week, Senator Chuck Schumer (D, New York) took to the floor of the United States Senate to give a speech of position on the current issue of the Democrats' filibuster of Bush's judicial nominees.

After he was done and after even a modest review of what he said, one finds oneself flabbergasted at the Senator's ignorance of history and the Constitution and even good etiquette. That, or he knowingly attempted to mislead his listeners on all his "facts". Either way, he is the perfect example of why so many Americans don't trust our politicians.

Obviously, Senator Schumer is the kind of the politician who will just say any old thing to "win" the argument. And it is plain that he thinks his audience is too stupid to realize how untrue his points are, sure they won't realize how badly he will warp truth and historical facts in pursuit of power. He has shown that he will lie worse than the little boy caught breaking the window with the baseball and blaming his imaginary friend for doing it.

Not only did Senator Schumer call Senator Orin Hatch (R, Utah) a liar, but he so mangled the ideas of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution that it beggars description. Further he attacked religious people with an offhanded and bigoted way.

Of his opponents in this filibuster fight, Schumer claimed they just "knew" they were wrong. This clearly means he is calling people who oppose him liars all. He also alluded to a sort of Christian conspiracy and created an image of the religious being wild eyed and fanatic by saying that they force their representatives to vote against the Constitution because the "heavens" dictate "to them what is right for everybody else".

Next he tries to massage history to make it seem as if the Republicans are trying to destroy the system of checks and balances that the Founders created to keep our country on the road to fuller and fair representation. He ridiculously pontificated, "The age old checks and balances, that are at the center of this Republic, that are at the center of this Constitution, are hanging in the precipice."

Schumer said the Senate is "a repository of checks and balances. Has been, and is today... Here, we work in many times by unanimous consent, where you need all 100 Senators to go along." This is an absurdity. The Senate has no Constitutional requirement that needs "all 100 Senators to go along" (except in the case of impeachment).

He goes on to claim "The Senate is not a majoritarian body. My good friend from Utah got up and spoke. I think he represents about 2 million people in Utah. I represent 19 million in New York State. We have the same vote. " Here he utterly misrepresents what the Founders meaant with the system of representation.

The "majoritarian" rule the Founders were avoiding with the fact that every Senator had only one vote for their state was that of the large states over the small states, NOT that between one party and another.

So, when he said " ... by the Founding Fathers' intent, that even when you are in the majority, you have to reach out and meet, not all, not most, but some of the concerns of the minority", he was again misleading the listener.

The Senate is a body that is supposed to represent the interests of the state from which a Senator hails. However, the Senate has devolved into a Party politics battlefield in which the Parties are represented and the interests of the states are left unrepresented.

Next, Schumer launches into an indictment of the veracity of Senator Orin Hatch, basically calling him a liar. He levels this claim at Senator Hatch: "Now, I understand my colleague from Utah and why he makes such ridiculous arguments. He's torn. He knows this is wrong." He follows that with a misreading of Senator hatch's argument. Hatch cogently reveals that the Democrats are misleading the country about the Senate's role within the Constitution's system of checks and balances.

Schumer goes on with, "When my friend from Utah lists the 10 most ridiculous arguments against keeping the filibuster and he says 'checks and balances is a ridiculous argument?' Please... he has more respect for the Constitution than to say 'checks and balances is a ridiculous argument. He knows darn well that a 51 to 49 vote does away with certain kinds of checks and balances." (Senator Hatch's historically based arguments against this filibuster can be seen here - TOP 10 MOST RIDICULOUS JUDICIAL FILIBUSTER DEFENSES )

Schumer is wrong on all counts. Hatch never said that the system of checks and balances is "ridiculous". He said the Democrats' claim that it is being affected is ridiculous. Further, a vote as close as "51 to 49" does not do away with a single check OR balance.

Next, Schumer acts as if he has no clue what the Vice President's job is as presiding officer of the Senate. Schumer said, " A year ago ... if we would have heard that the Republican majority was considering having the Vice President sit in the Chair and rule by fiat, his own interpretation of the Constitution, coming out of nowhere... and he says that we'll rule by fiat from the Chair?'

No, this is not what the Vice President said. He said that he will be in the chambers prepared to break any tie vote in favor of the President's position which is the DUTY of the Vice President when presiding over the Senate. There is no "rule by fiat" being contemplated nor is one even possible. Schumer knows this, though. So we have to realize he is purposefully trying to mislead us all with this blather.

Schumer then claims that the Republicans are saying "That there should be no more filibusters of judges, even though that's been allowed for 200 years?" But, this is not a true statement either. The filibuster absolutely has not been used against judges for 200 years and Schumer knows it. In the past the filibuster has been used for legislation only and then rarely to a positive purpose.

Again, Schumer attacks Hatch, saying "We are appealing to those members of the other side of the aisle, who unlike my friend from Utah, have thus far resisted the entreaties of the hard, hard, hard right, who have resisted the entreaties of the narrow few who are way out there..."

Schumer is attempting to paint Hatch as either too weak minded to resist this mythical "hard, hard, hard right" or is one of them and, therefore, out to do just what Schumer is doing; lie out his rear end to gain power.

He wraps up his bloviating with, "The basic makeup of our Senate is at stake. The checks and balances that Americans prize are at stake. The idea of bipartisanship, where you have to come together and can't just ram everything through because you have a narrow majority is at stake. The very things we treasure and love about this grand Republic are at stake."

Hoary rhetoric and utter garbage. In the end, after seeing how far off Schumer is on historical fact, how he warps the truth to fit his ends and how he maligns any and all opponents he reveals himself the poster boy for the power hungry, say anything, demagogues of which Americans are sick to death. When people see that these guys have no shame and will go to any lengths to grab power they just turn away in abject disgust.

He is right about one thing, though. If the Republicans don't get the kinds of judges who's rulings reflect the Constitution instead of the kind the Democrats want who recreates it to meet their own partisan ends, the very things we treasure and love about this grand Republic ARE at stake.

(Go here for the text of Schumer's speech)