Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Chuck Schumer's Indecent Attacks on Neil Gorsuch

The Senate minority leader can reject a Supreme Court nominee for any reason he wants, or even none at all.

If Democrats want to filibuster President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, they're entitled to do it. In fact, Democrats are free to try and stop federal appeals court Judge Neil Gorsuch's confirmation for any reason they desire, whether ideological or personal, or even no particular reason at all. There is nothing in the Constitution that compels senators to vote on judicial nominees the president forwards.

Make no mistake, though: Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) now opposes a potential SCOTUS justice because he promises to be impartial when upholding the Constitution.
Since Gorsuch's confirmation hearing starts Monday in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee and opponents have found "little to latch onto," according to Politico (which means they've found nothing to spin into accusations of misogyny or racism), Schumer and his allies have launched a ham-fisted effort to paint Gorsuch as a corporate stooge.

This argument includes a preposterous New York Times piece headlined "Neil Gorsuch Has Web of Ties to Secretive Colorado Billionaire." Who is this mysterious tycoon? Philip Anschutz, who is probably one the most familiar names in Colorado. He's so secretive, in fact, that one of the largest medical facilities in the state is named after him. That's just one of the many buildings that bears his name. If it's disqualifying for one of the state's leading lawyers to have a relationship with one of its leading businessmen, then nearly every Coloradan in Washington, D.C., will have to pack up and head home—including Schumer's colleague Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.).

Playing on this theme, Schumer trotted out a bunch of sad cases that supposedly illustrated the heartlessness at the core of Gorsuch's ideology. "Judge Gorsuch's decisions had negative real-life implications for working Americans," he tweeted. He also said, "When the chips are down, far too often he sides with the powerful few over everyday Americans just trying to get a fair shake."

By "chips," of course, Schumer means "law." As just one example, he tweeted, "Judge #Gorsuch ruled against Alphonse Maddin, from Michigan, a truck driver who was fired because he left his vehicle when freezing."

Well, guess what? The case was a bit more complicated than Gorsuch relishing an opportunity to punish working-class Americans. TransAm Trucking, Maddin's employer, fired him for insubordination because instead of waiting for help after his truck broke, he unhooked the trailer and drove to a gas station. Maddin seemed to act reasonably, and an administrative law judge ruled that his firing was illegal because federal law protects employees who refuse to operate a vehicle in unsafe conditions. Gorsuch reasoned that Maddin had been asked by TransAm not to leave his trailer but did anyway.

"It might be fair to ask whether TransAm's decision was a wise or kind one," Gorsuch wrote in his dissent. "But it's not our job to answer questions like that... It is our job and work enough for the day to apply the law Congress did pass, not to imagine and enforce one it might have but didn't." The "it's not our job to answer questions like that" is what's most offensive to left-wing sensibilities, which often champion judicial lawmaking.

Let's remember: Normalizing the idea that the Constitution should be subservient to progressive conceptions of "justice" goes back to Barack Obama, who in 2008 promised to nominate justices who shared "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy." The left hailed this gibberish as proof of a thoughtful temperament, when in reality it's a feel-good argument to subvert the constitutional duties of the president and the court to feelings.

At the time, Tommy Vietor, a spokesperson for the Democratic Party candidate, confirmed, "Barack Obama has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice." Someone should ask Schumer whether it is ever acceptable for a judge to rule against a poor person and in favor of a large corporation? Or does social and economic "justice" take precedence over law?

It's debatable that Gorsuch's decisions hurt working people in the long run anyway. But the idea that Gorsuch is unsuited for the position because he won't reflexively rule in favor of those in lower socioeconomic positions—and this is the entirety of the argument—is an attack on the Constitution. Justices solemnly swear to "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich." There is no addendum that says "unless they're really poor."

It's up to communities and government to show empathy. It's the job of judges to rule on law. Schumer is arguing that the impartiality of the courts should be ceded to the identity of the participants. That's un-American.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • wareagle||

    Chuck Schumer acts like moron. You don't say.

  • Bob Meyer||

    Trust me, he's not acting.

  • MoreFreedom||

    Schumer is a despicable politician who practices the politics of personal destruction.

    If Schumer didn't like the law whereby Madden was fired, then the question is why Schumer allowed Congress to pass it, or didn't fix it. The idea of following the law, or fixing it isn't Schumer's position, even though that's his responsibility. Instead it's to do what Schumer thinks regardless of the law for which he's responsible.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    There's nothing wrong with Chuckie Schumer that deep fat frying wouldn't solve.

  • Tamfang||

    Even with Preet Bharara out of office, I won't be a bit surprised if that comment results in another subpoena.

  • BTS11||

    mr schumer I wouldn't touch your hand
    With a thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole!

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Sure, Schumer is an asshat who is basically the senatorial equivalent of Nancy Pelosi, but he does serve a useful role within that august body. Schumer lends an air of gravitas and seriousness to that failed TV comedian turned senator, Al Franken. Were it not for ol' Chuckie Cheese, Franken might come off as the senate's biggest joke.

  • Rhywun||

    He is the dictionary definition of "projection", that's for sure.

    "Judge Gorsuch's decisions had negative real-life implications for working Americans," he tweeted.
  • rudehost||

    "It's up to communities and government to show empathy"

    If I recall the notion that governments are supposed to show empathy is a progressive position. @David the libertarian position is that the government's job is to protect people's rights. Your article was fine until the last throwaway comment was culled right out of the progressive playbook.

  • some guy||

    If I recall the notion that governments are supposed to show empathy is a progressive position.

    How so? Empathy just means listening to your constituents and understanding how they live and what they want out of life. Empathy and protecting people's rights are not mutually exclusive. And when deciding how to enforce laws that protect people's rights its good for government to listen to the people. Even in a libertarian society that's what democracy is about. How else is government to decide appropriate penalties for crimes and best way for law enforcement to interact with the community?

  • $park¥ don't care bout yo mom||

    Dude, real libertarians are logical, emotionless, and don't give a fuck about anyone else. That's the real reason charities will never work.

  • ||

    What in the fuck? Sarcasm?

  • Ragoftag||

    Dude, liberals are illogical, emotional, and don't give a fuck about actually helping anyone else. That's the real reason they claim charities will never work. Conservatives and libertarians are too busy contributing to food banks and volunteering at soup kitchens.

  • wareagle||

    it's interesting - the city manager in a place where I used to live often referred to "good govt." No, he didn't see city hall as the answer to everything and shot down more than a few ideas saying that city staff has neither the expertise nor the money for those things. His view was like what you outline - pay attention to citizens, listen to what they have to say and what they are willing to have municipal govt do. In many ways, it highlights the yawning gap between the disconnect of DC and the rest of us, and local govt where bureaucrats and politicos walk with everyone else.

  • rudehost||

    "Empathy and protecting people's rights are not mutually exclusive"

    No they aren't but neither are they mutually inclusive. If the government wants to show empathy I don't care as long as they are doing their actual job which is protecting my rights. There is not a rule that says the mechanic fixing my car must show empathy. If he does great but it has nothing to do with his job which is to fix my car. The same applies here.

  • Memory Hole||

    Maddin seemed to act reasonably, and an administrative law judge ruled that his firing was illegal because federal law protects employees who refuse to operate a vehicle in unsafe conditions.

    Gorsuch is the one who appears to be ignoring the law in this case if the law protects employees from operating a vehicle in unsafe conditions. The question for the finder of fact (the judge) was was whether staying by the trailer and risking the well-known hazards associated with the sitting on the side of roadway subjected the driver to an unsafe condition. That question is a subjective question. And Gorsuch is ignoring the fact that a roadway is a dangerous place to stop and wait. Gorsuch went out of his way to be an asshole in the instance. All Gorsuch had to do was recognize that stopping and waiting on the side of roadway is an unsafe condition. What a dick.

    Gorsuch was acting like an asshole and going out of his way to ignore the law to defend the powerful

  • MarkLastname||

    I bet the Koch brothers paid him to make that ruling.

  • rudehost||

    Based on what was presented in this article the law was about "operating" a vehicle. Sitting in the cab is not "operating" the vehicle. I don't know what the literal text of the law in question says but assuming the article is correct your comment is not germane.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Sitting in the cab is not "operating" the vehicle.

    Unless the DA wants it to be.

    http://www.lawyersmaine.com/bl.....s-driving/

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    Sitting in the cab is not "operating" the vehicle

    It is if the law wants it to be.

  • Memory Hole||

    Gorsch doesn't make an issue of whether this guy was in operation of a vehicle.

  • MoreFreedom||

    I would imagine the owner of the load Madden was hauling, would like it protected by the driver, rather than abandoned. Truck cabs are designed to be lived in for quite a length of time. It's part of the job.

    If truck cabs weren't so expensive, they'd be a good housing option, but even smaller than tiny houses.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    From the way the situation was described to me, the truck was not running, which would seriously impact the comfort of the cab in freezing conditions. I think the situation is that, morally the company might be in the wrong (depending on how 'freezing' the situation was), but the law did not cover that possibility, and the judge didn't feel it was his place to bend the law to do so.

    Progressives are always ready to bend a law....as long as it results in their desired ends. That is what makes government by progressives such an interesting and eventful experience.

  • Hunthjof||

    "he unhooked the trailer and drove to a gas station"

    Sounds like the truck was running but maybe couldn't safely haul the load. There is more to this story then meets the eye.

  • Sheriff Bart||

    What "well known hazards"?

  • Memory Hole||

    Go change a tire on the side of I 10 hombre

  • Sheriff Bart||

    Was he changing a tire? It seems unlikely since he drove the tractor to another location. Even if he had a flat, why not wait for assistance to ensure his safety? Why take additional risk by driving the tractor?

    Again, what risk did he incur by waiting in his cab as he was instructed?

  • some guy||

    Sitting in the cab of a truck in front of a trailer is not the same as getting out of a truck to change a tire. In fact, getting out of the truck to detach the trailer was much more dangerous for the driver than just sitting in the cab and waiting for help. You kind of countered your own argument there.

  • Horatio||

    And down he goes

  • american socialist||

    Was this what was being done?

  • Bob Meyer||

    Did it at 2:00 AM in the rain on the narrow shoulder of the Hollywood Fwy in Los Angeles. No cell phones in 1975. I was 26 and saw it as a challenge. I was dumber than a box of rocks. I also had no other way to get home.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The company instructed the driver to not operate the vehicle as they believed it was unsafe and he ignored the instruction. They may have told him that in order to comply with the law.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    All I know if this case is what I read in the article, but it appears that they driver

    1. Was told to wait for help to arrive
    2. Was sitting in a semi truck on the side of the road
    3. Has fuel in the vehicle enough to run the engine and supply heat to his cab
    4. Chose to get out, uncouple the trailer, and then drive away, contrary to his instructions

    It appears that the judge may have had some sympathy for the driver losing his job, but he did what a judge is supposed to do and upheld the law.

    If we of the "community" do not like the law as it is written and dutifully interpreted and applied by the judiciary, then it is incumbent upon us to take this up with our elected representatives and get it changed. Or not.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    He didn't have heat, and that's why the court was sympathetic to his case.

  • Billy Bones||

    "...sitting on the side of roadway subjected the driver to an unsafe condition."

    So are you seriously suggesting that sitting in a vehicle on the side of the road creates a more unsafe condition than, say, DRIVING on the road? He unhooked his trailer (with a flat, which he was specifically told NOT to do), and drove off. The most unsafe thing that occurred was the driver leaving his cab to UNHOOK the trailer, which he was specifically told NOT to do.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    The law says employees can't be fired for refusing to operate an unsafe vehicle. It doesn't say that companies can't be dicks in how they treat their employees. Because Maddin wasn't ordered to operate an unsafe vehicle, the law saying he can't be fired for that shouldn't apply (obviously). That was Gorsuch's reasoning. The other judges chose to ignore the law, and find for the more sympathetic party.

  • DarrenM||

    To what extent is a judge obligated to know every law on the books and to what extent are they to rely on the lawyers to bring up applicable laws?

  • Ryan2414||

    ...statute only forbids employers from firing employees who "refuse[] to operate a
    vehicle" out of safety concerns. ...nothing like that happened here.
    The trucker in this case wasn't fired for refusing to operate his vehicle...
    his employer gave him the option the statute [requires]: once he voiced
    safety concerns, TransAm expressly — and by everyone's admission — permitted
    him to sit and remain where he was and wait for help.The trucker was fired only
    after he declined the protected option (refuse to operate) and chose
    instead to operate his vehicle in a manner he thought wise but his employer did
    not.

  • Ryan2414||

  • Diane Merriam||

    That's the real question, isn't it? Was it actually unsafe? The outside temperature, assuming the motor and heater itself were operating, doesn't really matter. It can keep the interior of the cab plenty warm in all but the worst conditions. As to the location, I don't think I've ever heard of a truck being crashed into on the side of the road that posed much, if any, danger to the driver. Now if it was a single lane back country road or next to a steep drop off, that might be different. Maybe he went to the gas station to use their bathroom because he had to do more than just take a piss. How long was it going to take for the repair crew to get there? We don't know *why* he left. We don't know if he left intending to be back shortly and the crew got there a lot sooner than expected.

    So there's a lot missing from the information given that would have to actually be taken into account.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Chuck Schumer's Indecent

    David could have just stopped right here and submitted the article.

  • Not a True MJG||

    Proposal?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    [vomits]

  • Tamfang||

    But then it wouldn't be news.

  • Free Society||

    Gorsuch? More like GORSUCK! Amarite? ehhh? ehhhhh? /Schumer

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "Judge Gorsuch's decisions had negative real-life implications for working Americans," he tweeted.

    Oh my fucking GAWD. This POS has done more to destroy the lives of Americans more than Gorsuch could ever do from the bench. He's worked to criminalize all kinds of normal human endeavors and he's the one who rammed the Silk Road prosecution through, resulting in that bizarre sentence.

    At long last, senator, have you no self-awareness?

  • some guy||

    And have you ever listened to him talk? I vote for him as the current most annoying voice in politics.

  • Principal Spittle||

    That is his designated role, they call it "leadership" The party and caucus systems organises talking points, creates messaging, narrative structure and disseminates it in a coordinated way. They select individual members to deliver specific wording based on their character (or lack thereof) and arrangements are made for the supporting cast. The package is "shopped" to selected press outlets some of whom provide valuable feedback. Party loyalists knowingly nod approval at the efforts and take note of the "players". Party hacks vigorously pretend they understand, agree and are one hundred percent consistent . Finally commentators pick up the shtick and start swinging it around wildly (Pun intended).
    And in case you are wondering what's the difference between a commentator and a commenter. A commentator speaks angrily, loudly and often with spittle flying from his smacking lips. A commenter just spits.

  • Wizard with a Woodchipper||

    Schumer is loathsome.The Republicans will have to ditch the filibuster to get around his party and ram Gorsuch through. Will the contemptible Mitch McConnell find his spine and fight this? We'll see.I am not holding my breath.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I feel bad for Chuck Schumer. No one ever takes him seriously because of his righteous titties.

  • Free Society||

    Righteous? They're only A-cups, possibly a small banana shaped B-cups. Let's not overstate it.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    You'd motorboat the bejeepers out of those things.

  • Rhywun||

    "Eyes up here, fellas."

    *two snaps*

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Schumer once tried to reenact the Truffle Shuffle at a Halloween party. Seven bystanders were seriously injured.

  • ||

    Chuck Schumer is an acquaintance of mine. I worked on his first campaign for office and admire him greatly.

    But his logic at times is off the rails. Thanks for setting the record straight.

    Poor does not equal right, nor deserving. It just equals poor.

    Right or deserving can only be demonstrated by facts and should not be assumed just because the specific opposition is viewed by some as neither.

  • Rhywun||

    The man has spent his entire career making it harder for the "little guy" to earn an honest living in this state, and as a result they are fleeing the state like nobody's business. How can you admire that?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    But you have to remember, in his own words, Senator Schumer was "born to legislate."

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Tragically, he mispronounced "lactate."

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    My condolences.....

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    My condolences.....

  • chemjeff||

    Yeah I think both tribes now have more or less dropped the pretense that SCOTUS judges are just supposed to be umpires "calling balls and strikes". They want a tribal member who will bend the law to serve the interests of their tribe.

  • ||

    Thanks, once again, FDR.

  • creech||

    FDR, a great man, according to Ken Burns. But his wife, Eleanor, was even greater!

  • Subpoena'd Woodchipper||

    That wife of his, Eleanor, Big Dyke. Huge Dyke. A real Rug muncher. Looked like a big lesbian mule

  • Cynical Asshole||

    They want a tribal member who will bend the law to serve the interests of their tribe.

    How else do you supplant the "rule of law" with the "rule of man?"

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Chuck Schumer's Indecent Attacks on Neil Gorsuch

    Kinky...

  • Ska||

    Chuck Schumer stampedes cattle through the Vatican.

  • wareagle||

    Wasn't Gorsuch unanimously put onto the federal bench where he now sits? I think that's right, so any hand-ringing about him now sounds more than a little partisan. I realize Moobs has to put on the requisite kabuki show but, dear lord, these acts are growing increasingly tiresome.

  • simplybe||

    Shumer, Graham, McCain and Pelosi the 4 Horsemen of the downfall of America. Reid abandoned ship so he could spend more time with small children.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Reid abandoned ship so he could spend more time with small children.

    Won't someone think of those children?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Reid certainly is.

  • ||

    Somebody give that man a flashbang. He'll know what to do with it.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Rub it on his dinner-plate-sized nipples until he explodes?

  • Jerryskids||

    But the idea that Gorsuch is unsuited for the position because he won't reflexively rule in favor of those in lower socioeconomic positions—and this is the entirety of the argument—is an attack on the Constitution.

    That would be the entirety of the argument if it were a good-faith argument, but it's not. It's no use trying to argue with people who have no interest in and no intent of actually arguing but just using whatever attacks are handy. It's how and why they can easily attack one guy for doing X and simultaneously attack another person for not doing X and praise a third for doing X. It's principals over principles.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    All I know if this case is what I read in the article, but it appears that they driver

    1. Was told to wait for help to arrive
    2. Was sitting in a semi truck on the side of the road
    3. Had fuel in the vehicle enough to run the engine and supply heat to his cab
    4. Chose to get out, uncouple the trailer, and then drive away, contrary to his instructions

    It appears that the judge may have had some sympathy for the driver losing his job, but he did what a judge is supposed to do and upheld the law per its intent and purpose; not to misconstrue said law in order to "help a guy out." That sort of judicial free ranging has had innumerable bad outcomes in spite of any "good intentions,"

    If we of the "community" do not like the law as it is written and dutifully interpreted and applied by the judiciary, then it is incumbent upon us to take this up with our elected representatives and get it changed. Or not. Or we can bitch and post about a bad employer and put enough pressure on them to back down from an asshole position, But judges should not make or misinterpret and misapply a law.

  • ssgcmw||

    Actually, the heater wasn't working. The driver reported symptoms of hypothermia.

  • ||

    The Democrat party can't dissolve and disappear fast enough.

  • Tony||

    Go back to kindergarten and learn how to use parts of speech correctly, moron.

  • DOOMco||

    ooooooooooo

  • Tony||

    His not being Merrick Garland is reason enough, but it's good to know that he possibly won't be as much of a stupid ideologue as Alito and that Trump didn't nominate Hulk Hogan or someone. I don't think the Republicans would have blocked anyone. They haven't blocked him on anything so far, and he's a giant vulgar, traitorous pimple.

  • ||

    Anyone know if Neil Gorsuch is related to Edward Gorsuch? Not making judgements, just curious as a genealogist.

  • Free Society||

    Not according to the possibly dubious research done here.

  • TruthInAction||

    Ask Clarence Thomas what it's like to be questioned by Democrats.

    Robert Bork is gone, so he can't answer.

  • Damned||

    But...but... but Bork!!!

    Oh, the inhumanity.

    Let's see. Bork was a qualified windbag who thought being on the Supreme Court was an intellectual feast.

    He was opposed but was heard through committee.

    The committee voted him out, but he insisted on a full Senate vote.

    He was given that vote and lost 42 to A LOT in a bipartisan fashion.

    Now, Garland... he was favored by Orrin Hatch, but rejected in an oped describing a meeting that took place hours after the oped was posted detailing why he was rejected.

    So, remember that, before you BORK BORK BORK next time

  • Bob Meyer||

    Bork argued that the Ninth Amendment was meaningless because it didn't list the "un-enumerated" rights and therefore had the significance of an ink spot on the Constitution. He was the worst Supreme Court nominee since Oliver Wendell "three generations of idiots is enough" Holmes.

  • Robert Corry, Esq.||

    As usual, Harsanyi gets it 100% right. The Rule of Law protects everyone, left, right, middle, or criminally accused. It is tragic when both conservative or liberal judges ignore the Constitution, the problem is that ironically when judges ignore this seminal document, it is the poor and disadvantaged who suffer most. Neil Gorsuch is a solid judge and ought to be confirmed swiftly and unanimously. There is no cogent argument against him.

  • Damned||

    The Rule of Law protects everyone, left, right, middle, or criminally accused.

    The Rule of Law is a myth, if you think it protects the criminally accused.

    It protects the rich. The rest is up to chance

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Oooh, look at me, I'm a fucking retarded proggie troll......

  • Damned||

    Not just you, your mom as well. Both are ugly, too.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    proggie troll continues to prog....news at 11

  • Tamfang||

    Make it: "The rule of law, if it existed, would protect …"

  • Robert Corry, Esq.||

    As usual, Harsanyi gets it 100% right. The Rule of Law protects everyone, left, right, middle, or criminally accused. It is tragic when both conservative or liberal judges ignore the Constitution, the problem is that ironically when judges ignore this seminal document, it is the poor and disadvantaged who suffer most. Neil Gorsuch is a solid judge and ought to be confirmed swiftly and unanimously. There is no cogent argument against him.

  • Bongstar420||

    Gorsuch would be a fine judge, if he wasn't there due to politicking by the republicons.

    Next time, the cons need to not get in the way of appointments just because a republicon lite (democrat) is doing the appointing.

    trumpski can appoint Obama's pick or no one at all

    On another note, I suppose we should bring back "African decndent citizens are 3/5ths of a human (*cough* get 3/5ths of a vote *cough*) because that was the letter of the law
    Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787

    It should be obvious that this, no matter the candidates own personal rhetoric, 100% a political appointment.

  • Damned||

    When will reason.com do an article on its favorite so-called judge Napolitano shamelessly launching indecent attacks on Obama with his wire "tapping" accusations that involved British intelligence?

    Never, I guess. Republicans need to stand together.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    I hope they do. The Judge's story is entirely plausible. Plenty of back channel stuff like this between the US and the 4 other "Eyes" seems likely. I don't doubt that the Trump camp was, and remains, under intense surveillance. Why wouldn't other agencies try to gather as much intel as they can? It's what they do.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Shit, it doesn't even have to be "intense", routine surveillance is pretty intense these days, amiright?

  • Damned||

    Extreme

  • Damned||

    Yup, Republicans need to stick with Drumpf

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

  • DanO.||

    When will reason.com do an article on its favorite so-called judge Napolitano

    Reason has a too-cozy relationship with Fox News, a Republican propaganda outfit, so my guess is that an objective analysis of Fox's relentless Republican propaganda will happen at about the same time that Trump admits that he is wrong about something.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    That's ok. Chuckie Schumer is a full time asshole. People keep voting for him, so he gets to keep a platform for being an asshole on. And so it goes.

  • RichS63||

    Liberals are falling into the trap Trump and Bannon have laid out for them. They are too stupid to see it. They will continue in their opposition. This will justify McConnell using the nuclear option and removing the filibuster as a Senate tool. The result will make Democrats in the Senate as impotent as Democrats in the house. It will mark the beginning of the end of liberal policies in America for decades. Thank God Schumer is such a complete idiot.

  • Durango74||

    Task Force 6 seeking more information on this matter.
    January 18, 1983, District Attorney Holtzman issued the following press release:
    "D.A. HOLTZMAN ASKS FOR SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE SCHUMER
    "Brooklyn District Attorney Elizabeth Holtzman announced today that she requested Governor Mario Cuomo yesterday to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate allegations of criminal misconduct by Rep. Charles E. Schumer.
    The investigation will also delve deeply into the highly illegal Schumer/LUKOIL scheme with the Russians for personal gain.

  • ||

  • ||

  • ||

  • Bongstar420||

    Awwww...the long con is finally being called what it is

    Did you people forget; A=A

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online