Orrin Hatch Blasts Chuck Schumer's 'Dumbass Questions'

Thursday, July 21, 2005 10:20 a.m. EDT


Orrin Hatch Blasts Chuck Schumer's 'Dumbass Questions'

Sen. Charles Schumer's questioning of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts was so hostile during Roberts' 2003 appellate court confirmation hearings that Sen. Orrin Hatch blasted his New York colleague for asking "dumbass questions."

In a audioclip of the exchange unearthed Wednesday by ABC Radio host Sean Hannity, the normally mild-mannered Utah Republican complained:

"Some [of Schumer’s questions] I totally disagree with. Some I think are dumbass questions, between you and me."

"I am not kidding you," Hatch continued. "I mean, as much as I love and respect [Schumer], I just think that’s true."

Taken aback, the New York Democrat asked if Hatch would like to "revise and extend his remark" - i.e., offer a retraction for the congressional record.

But Hatch refused to back down, telling Schumer:

"No, I am going to keep it exactly the way it is. I mean, I hate to say it. I mean, I feel badly saying it between you and me. But I do know dumbass questions when I see dumbass questions."




Personally I think that this says a lot, Hatch is not one to get upset very quick and is liked by both sides. I think we are in for a fight over this choice for the Supreme court.

I think I will know my opinion by how the left reacts and this is a good start, so far I think


LINK

[edit on 21-7-2005 by edsinger]

Because Ed, you're simply a caricature right now!

1. Quote Newsmax in Slugfest only

2. A 2 year old situation is a 2 year old situation - relevance to this forth coming hearing is WHAT exactly?

3. Newsmax is a propaganda ( thought you needed to hear that again! )

4. Orrin Hatch has shown himself to be, during the Clinton years, a reasonable & civic minded politician. Since the Neocon forced compliance for all sack-less Republicans, he's nothing but a schill and whore for Team Bush. He couldn't shine Shumers shoes.

I think I will know my opinion by how the left reacts and this is a good start, so far I think

Being an opinonless reactionary poised to confront for confrontations sake is just plain unAmerican. Judge the judge, then pick a battle in progress if any.
It will help to realize this nomination has nothing to do with due dilegence and EVERYTHING to do with getting focus offf of the White House Security leaks & treasonable offenses.

Originally posted by Bout TimeBecause Ed, you're simply a caricature right now!

Whatever you say...At ATS, I am one of the few to call the tulipwalkers what they are. Outnumber though I am, I keep clicking away. It makes my day when a Tulipwalker gets exposed.

Originally posted by Bout Time3. Newsmax is a propaganda ( thought you needed to hear that again!

)

And the New York Times isnt? So if a right leaning publication tells its side its propaganda, but if a left one does its news? Get real and climb down off your high horse. You don't Like it (Newsmax & WND) because for one thing they are successful with the views and that should tell you something.

Originally posted by Bout Time4. Orrin Hatch has shown himself to be, during the Clinton years, a reasonable & civic minded politician. Since the Neocon forced compliance for all sack-less Republicans, he's nothing but a schill and whore for Team Bush. He couldn't shine Shumers shoes.

Shumer is a liberal Putz, and you call Hatch a whore? Thats funny, thats like calling Clinton monogomous.

Originally posted by Bout TimeEVERYTHING to do with getting focus offf of the White House Security leaks & treasonable offenses.

Ah now we get to the root, you call Bush treasonous! Well ol Clinton sold some items that put the United States in harms way to the Chinese for campaign funds, that is treasonous, not confronting an attack on your country even while watching your back as some of your won people would love nothing better than to see their own country loose. I guess it makes them look cool to all their cool friends down at the starbucks.


Well here ios some news for you Tulipwalkers out there, BUSH Won! The majority spoke and the backlash happened to your liberal crap. You lost.

1. Clinton was a fiscal moderate, social progressive - polar extreme labels work, I'll agree with you, because my dog just can't get beyond "Good Girl, Bad Girl", so I know how some will miss that fact!

2. Nuke plans to China - stolen during Reagan, Tested During Poppy, all this while Neil had the security contract for the Lab. Clinton? Yeah, right

3. If anybody is in safe numbers at ATS, it's you Ed - you've got all the post count monkeys this board can handle PLUS most of the Mods!

4. NY Times is on par with Newsmax & WND!?! Not even your folks are backing you on that one....that's plain retarded, Ed!

5. Schumer - sorry, facts in the way again: Sen. from my home state has backed, enabled and championed business growth in NY, and I mean ALL OF NY. This guy get to every corner of the state and has been behind developement zones in the upstate areas that have saved those areas. Again, not believing that the Fed. gov. should be in the business of Social Darwinism does not make one a Liberal.

6. Down @ Starbucks - Dude, I'm a double espresso guy from the bodega, I don't know who goes to Starbucks!

Come on Ed, you know this was fodder for the news cycle as a distraction, nothing more.
Their mistake? Not picking the rip roaring bible thumper who would get folks up in arms. This guy? Vanilla

Have a good weekend if I don't type at ya later!

Yeah, I heard the quote on the radio, it was pretty funny.

Why rehash this two years after it's already happened, you ask? Because we're about to see it again. Regardless of what you think of NewsMax, Bout Time, they quoted the conversation directly. If they changed any of the quotes, you would see many who would like to see NewsMax go away sue them for libel. You don't. Quotes must be valid (plus, as I said, I did hear them on the radio).

I like how anyone who disagrees with a political stand by some congressperson whom they respect, or used to respect, is suddenly a shill for disagreeing.

Shumer was asking John Roberts for his opinions on Supreme Court decisions he disagreed with. It's been tried before in the last 27 years, and every time the nominee has responded about the same way. Because those issues may be readdressed by the court, they don't want to give an opinion on potential cases without having been presented with the evidence that will come when said case comes up. That has been an acceptable answer. Always. However, Shumer, the...What, free thinking, non-partisan genius that he is, wouldn't let it go, and starts demanding that he name 3 court decisions he disagreed with. That's when Orrin Hatch stepped in and called them "dumbass questions."

The fact that Shumer was taken aback, and didn't expect Hatch's response gives more enforcement that he's "reasonable & civic minded politician", although I've wanted to sit him (Hatch) down at times and yell at him a bit asking him what the heck he was thinking with some proposals. Ahh, but no, you disagree with his positions, so he must be an evil neocon ...Wait, how did you put it? That's right. He's a "neocon sack-less Republicans";..." nothing but a shill and whore for Team Bush." As everyone is who agrees with Bush on anything

EDIT: Spelling

[edit on 7-22-2005 by junglejake]

Originally posted by Bout Time2. Nuke plans to China - stolen during Reagan, Tested During Poppy, all this while Neil had the security contract for the Lab. Clinton? Yeah, right

Uh wrong, check the Gyroscope technology sold to them by Hughes to save them 150million on a Satellite, and then Gore and his mysterious Buddha expedition. Some of the Warhead designs were taken during the Clinton years also, not just Bush1 and Reagan(Doubt this one). Just check the good old executive order trails whilst the Pentagon was screaming NO!

Originally posted by Bout Time
3. If anybody is in safe numbers at ATS, it's you Ed - you've got all the post count monkeys this board can handle PLUS most of the Mods!

Are you #ting me? Thats funny, REAL Funny. Maybe I need to show you some of my many U2U's and Flags........

Originally posted by Bout Time4. NY Times is on par with Newsmax & WND!?! Not even your folks are backing you on that one....that's plain retarded, Ed!

I hope you dont get flagged for that, I dont think it warrents it.

Yeah I would compare them, would you perfer a Fox news vs CBS one? Newsmax posts things and viewpoints that I agree with most of the time as does World nut Daily. The NYT is a liberalist POS paper with an agenda, but I will grant you that WND and Newsmax also have one.

But since its on Newsmax it can not be true, only the New York Times can be truthful....





#, I spilled my beer.

Originally posted by junglejake

Yeah, I heard the quote on the radio, it was pretty funny.

Why rehash this two years after it's already happened, you ask? Because we're about to see it again. Regardless of what you think of NewsMax, Bout Time, they quoted the conversation directly. If they changed any of the quotes, you would see many who would like to see NewsMax go away sue them for libel. You don't. Quotes must be valid (plus, as I said, I did hear them on the radio).

But since its on Newsmax it can not be true, only the New York Times can be truthful....





#, I spilled my beer.

Newsmax posts things and viewpoints that I agree with most of the time as does World nut Daily

The New York Times is a newspaper. Newsmax & World 'nut' Daily are partisan hack sites that convey actual news in a pre-ordained perspective & selectively. Safire, Kristol, Friedman and direct from the WH - Rice, Powell, O'Neil = all the best intellectuals the Right has to offer, all write & have written for the NYT.
You can't be serious about putting the NYT down to that Newsmax level?

Because we're about to see it again. Regardless of what you think of NewsMax, Bout Time, they quoted the conversation directly. If they changed any of the quotes, you would see many who would like to see NewsMax go away sue them for libel. You don't. Quotes must be valid (plus, as I said, I did hear them on the radio).

I like how anyone who disagrees with a political stand by some congressperson whom they respect, or used to respect, is suddenly a shill for disagreeing.

Shumer was asking John Roberts for his opinions on Supreme Court decisions he disagreed with. It's been tried before in the last 27 years, and every time the nominee has responded about the same way. Because those issues may be readdressed by the court, they don't want to give an opinion on potential cases without having been presented with the evidence that will come when said case comes up. That has been an acceptable answer. Always. However, Shumer, the...What, free thinking, non-partisan genius that he is, wouldn't let it go, and starts demanding that he name 3 court decisions he disagreed with. That's when Orrin Hatch stepped in and called them "dumbass questions."

The fact that Shumer was taken aback, and didn't expect Hatch's response gives more enforcement that he's "reasonable & civic minded politician", although I've wanted to sit him (Hatch) down at times and yell at him a bit asking him what the heck he was thinking with some proposals.

So let me get this straight: "because we're about to see it again" - you, and the rest of the sheep, are screaming for Shumer's head based on questions he hasn't asked yet? Prognostication - does that come from the prayer circles, in between the pleas for devine intervention to have cranes breakdown so that religious monuments can't be moved off of ogvernment property?
Are you that blind to understand that y'all are trying to work the referrees of public opinion be fore the flag is even thrown!?!?!
No, Newsmax, WND, Free Republic, Democratic Underground, are not going to get sued for libel. Why would they? Who is going to take them for beyond what they are? Contrary to the silly "we're fighting the good fight" nonsense that has all you WHite/Male/Christian /Neocons thinking the underdog position, nobody is out to "get" Newsmax, or see it go away - it's ability to channel public opinion has been so complete that it's a thing for liberals & progressives to fear.....is that the thought?
By your own admission, Hatch has given in to the NeoCon minority by being a lighting rod for some seriously stupid proposals - ones that had gone against his record of being an overall sound politician.
Shumer should ask Roberts everything and anthing he deems appropriate - as will Arlene Specter & any othe memeber of the Judical comittee - that's what they were elected & selected to do.
Scrutiny free appointments are fascist.....why do the boiled down arguments by the Right consistently illustrate that mind set? Until Shumer or anybody else asks a question that's out of line, you're working the ref, it's disingenuous & far from worthy of serious consideration......you are literally arguing a call on the field for a game that hasn't been played yet.

As for Roberts, judges bouncing back & forth between the private sector & federal jobs are even more suspect than politicians. Especially when they're rich off of representing Coal Conglomerates & Global Auto MFg's AGAINST individuals AND being part of the Legal Eagles corrupting the Florida vote that installed Bush in the first place. The word is "taint"........he's got it. But still, he's someone who has known what side his taost is buttered on, I can't fault that. He does have redeeming qualities & the actual specfics of his career, which none of us know, are yet revealed and splayed open. I'll reserve judgement & pray the Right does not get a further end around on Democracy & block that discovery.

Wow, you managed to attack any non-left leaning news source as hacks, attacked Christianity, twisted words, skewed words (reread your post, deserved mention twice), fabricated opinions, and admitted willing ignorance.

Well, where to start. First of all, Christianity is not a political religion. I can be a Republican and not be a Christian, just as I can be a Democrat and be a Christian. I don't know if you've been living under a rock for the past 2,000 years, or decided to ignore the fact that Christianity is a lot bigger than one little nation's inner political squabbles to further your political agenda.

He does have redeeming qualities & the actual specifics of his career, which none of us know

Speak for yourself. I don't exclusively get my news from the unbiased, truth seeking media outlets like the New York Times, LA Times, Chicago Tribune and MoveOn.org. I try to branch out, look for things on my own, and know quite a bit about Mr. Roberts, unless all of it was classified over the weekend and I just didn't hear about it. If that's the case, my computer at home is currently breaking US law.

And, of course, the DU wouldn't sure NewsMax for libel if they misquoted or made up a quote by someone. I'm sure both Shumer and Hatch are more than happy having neocon...What was the word again...Oh yeah, hacks misrepresenting them in a manner meant to be taken seriously (and some of those poor, unsuspecting fools, IQs of which must be under 20, like myself actually believe the lies, slander, libel, and yellow journalism that come out of there!) After all, I'm sure Shumer would defer to DemocraticUnderground to make sure he could sue for libel just as Hatch would first have to consult with Limbaugh. Oh yes, and both, of course, would have to confirm it with the ruler of the universe, Rove.

Shumer can ask any questions he wants. He can demand classified memos and the like knowing full well that the constitution and declarations have said that, in order to maintain the separation of powers, the inner workings of one branch will not be audited by another, only their actions. Shumer can ask and ask, but if he does, it will be for publicity, not to get any information. This is not a call for Shumer to be fired, he's one of the right's greatest allies. Lot of hot air with no content, just like his boss. This is to open people's eyes to what's going to be taking place here. When people hear Kerry and Shumer demanding classified memos from the executive branch, and when you hear Bush say, "uhh...What now? Of course not!", it's not because he's trying to hide anything, it's because that information is not given to congress, just like Bush can't demand the meeting minutes leading up to a decision on a law bill to be passed. For those of you who are not going to go through this as party shills and just bob your heads echoing the talking points from either party, just take note.

Scrutiny free appointments are fascist

Ahh, there's that word again. Normally, I would agree with you in part, and delve into this issue. Instead, I'm going to ask you to give me some talking points to address with your sweeping statement here. Quantify it. Why is it fascist?

I didn't follow the retort too closely, as you were likely speeding to get to work, class or at work, and it's a little tough to see where you were going with it.

Why are scrutiny-free appointments fascist?
Simply put, they're implying that the "leader" knows what's best for all, and they circumvent our system of governments safeguards.

Christianity has been politicized, used as a bludgeoning tool and a seperator of citizens in this country by the Neocons. There's absolutes & reality, Jake. In the absolute, no religion is political. In reality, tell me what's transpired in this country over the last 6 years has not dragged Christianity thru the mud?

What was sketchy: DU, Freeperville & Newsmax won't get sued because they're fringe elements & people know that going in. Please reread - it covered polar leaning sites. Is Lisa Preseley suing for slander the market tabloids that say pops Elvis is shagging aliens? Newsmax is in the same category - a mindless fluff that people can be entertained by without intellectual investment - unless you're a Neocon.....then it's journalistic integrity trumps the NYT!

Jake, you know JACK about Roberts, as do us all. I'm as google well read on him as you are - what Kerry & Shumer would be asking for is past performance, covered by FOA requests, with his on record, on the public dime, advice in past Bush administrations. What are you scared of & how is that trivial?

Shumer: first, a false anology - him asking for the above is not equal to Bush asking for the minutes of a meeting that preceeds a Senate vote - that's plain hyperbole, Jake!
Shumer: again, my senator - a dedicated, smart, apolitcal elected official. You'll never hear the s**t a Pete King or Orin Hatch spouts.
Shumer: bashing the guy in anticiaption of questions he has not ASKED YET, would be laughable, if you weren't so serious about it.

heh, "subtle" insult. So ya know, I still stand behind what I told you way back when via U2U. I do, however, think you're quick to condemn when the accused party's politics disagree with your own and are slow to convict when the accused party's politics agree with your own. However, I know most, including myself, are guilty of this.

Anyway, hypocritical to say demanding White House memos is totally different than demanding congressional memos? This came from the New Yorker:

"In an effort to learn more about Estrada’s views, Leahy and his fellow-Democrats asked the Administration to produce memos that Estrada had written when he worked in the solicitor general’s office."

Source

I suspect that is going to happen because it already has in the past for far less important judicial appointments.

As to the rest, believe what you will, I cannot convince you otherwise, no matter how much evidence I present.

It appears I made a mistake. The memos have already been requested:

While Roberts holds meet-and-greet sessions with members deciding his fate, some Democrats have begun asking for documents Roberts wrote while working for both former Presidents Reagan and Bush.

Roberts worked in the Reagan White House counsel's office from 1982-1986. He also was principal deputy solicitor general, a political appointment in the administration of the first President Bush.

Let the obstruction begin -- the White House will refuse, and the press will take that refusal and run with it, saying it shows they're hiding something, totally ignoring the fact that by law the White House is not supposed to do that.

Source

EDIT: The funniest part is who the poster child is demanding full release of all materials: Mr. John Kerry himself And you called me a hypocrite!

[edit on 7-25-2005 by junglejake]

Why is John Roberts a KEY MEMBER of the Federalist Society? Will he do what he must and disassociate himself with this DEVOUTLY PARTISAN RIGHT WING organization?

Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said other nominees, including Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, have provided material they wrote in confidence while working in the Justice Department.

''It's a total red herring to say, 'Oh, we can't show this,''' Leahy told ABC's ''This Week.'' ''

''And of course there is no lawyer-client privilege,'' he said. ''Those working in the solicitor general's office are not working for the president. They're working for you and me and all the American people.''

Leahy and the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, said Roberts' elevation to the Supreme Court called for a high standard of evaluation -- higher than that when the Senate agreed to out Roberts on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in May 2003.

********************************************************
Another Judiciary Committee Democrat, Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, said the goal is to learn about Roberts' judicial philosophy and method of legal reasoning.

''This is not a game of 'gotcha,' and document requests and, in general, information requests, are not an end, a goal to prove something,'' Schumer said. ''They're a means to simply determining Justice Roberts' judicial views. That's all we want.''



That Evil Bastion of Radical Left Wing thought: The NYT


We need to know how DEEP Robert's partisanship runs. The Federalist Society is a horrible start ( for his chances), the uncommented on big paychecks he cashed during the revolving door from Fed to Private is another area of concern.
In my opinion, there are enough Circuit Court judges without that taint to choose from. But since Poppy indoctrinated him into the Reich....well, you know, they're obligated to re-tread him like all the others!

hehe Just like Ruth Bader Ginsburg had absloutly no political ties. She was never in charge of a blatantly partisan group. Nope, not her. Otherwise she'd never have gotten the 96 to 3 vote confirmation. Because all the Republicans care about is getting someone on the bench who agrees with their politics, not the validity of the person's ability to interpret law, agree or disagree with the interpretation.

The guy is a conservative. Are you shocked? Should he have been a moderate or liberal instead? It's never had to be the case before. Well, that's not true, Bush Sr. had to deal with it, as did Reagan. Oh, if only the Republicans would pick middle of the roaders like Clinton did

Originally posted by junglejake
hehe Just like Ruth Bader Ginsburg had absloutly no political ties. She was never in charge of a blatantly partisan group. Nope, not her.

********************

Oh, if only the Republicans would pick middle of the roaders like Clinton did

Ginsburg was General Counsel for the ACLU. While the ACLU makes regular gullet grist in the mouths of the talking heads on the Right, they are strict interpretationist of the letter of the law. So much so, that Clinto foes & GOP Big Dogs, "Yes, I am one"Dick Armey & Bob "Don't say I have Black Blood" Barr, went to work for them BECAUSE of the raping of the Constitution by Team Bush.
The ACLU stands to the fair intrpretation of existing laws vs. the Federalist Society which seeks to rewrite, repeal and establish a conservative only perspective.
Your boy, Orrin Hatch, was sought out by Clinton and his OPINION was solicited prior to Ginsburg being nominated. THAT IS WHY a public legal servant like Ginsburg sailed thru.
Maybe if Republican presidents stopped nominatiing devisive ideolouges who pimp for the corporations that finance their political careers, they'd have easier nominations, no?
But I forgot - you like the sage leader(sheppard) tellign you who is good!

That's right, bout, I don't think for myself. I think I'm done with this thread.

Tough point to argue successfully, since it's the barebones of arguing a foul prior to one being comitted.
Make sure that you read the Washington Monthly piece on the Federalist Society, though, it's something that all true conservatives should be concerned about.

Guess I'm not really done. Yep, Bout Time, you showed me. I was wrong, you taught me that. It wasn't the "facts" you presented, though, it was when you became personal and started attacking me that caused me to finally see the light. Thank you for insulting me, without that, I never would have understood where you stood.

Besides, I don't have a leg to stand on in this arguement, unless, of course, I use facts, but we're talking personal insults here, not facts, and I don't stand a chance in that arena. I bow to you, Mr. Time. You are obviously the better man.

When & where did I personally insult you? Seriously, I do not see where - please U2U me with it or post it here.
You & the threads author are slamming Shumer for something he asked 2+ years ago and prognosticating about what he will ask in some future point of discussion.
Newsmax generates RNC talking points, and you two picked it up whole heartedly & ran with it. Had you started the thread about Shumer 2+ years ago - cool, matter of record, and we could discuss Hatch vs. Shumer.
But, you're taking the tact of "softing up" the crowd before SC nominee Roberts is asked Question #1.
If being called a "sheep" is the cited insult, I can't see where that doesn't fit, based on taking up this talking point.
Also, as I've told a few of the other Neocons, please stop feigning insult to distract from being called to task - I didn't think you a hothouse flower, Jake?