Schumer privately asked Trump to nominate Merrick Garland to Supreme Court: report

[brooklynite]

Source: The Hill

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) privately urged President Trump in a phone conversation to nominate Merrick Garland, former President Obama's Supreme Court nominee from 2016, to replace the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy.

The Washington Post reported on Thursday that Schumer told Trump in phone call that lasted less than five minutes on Tuesday that the move would help unite the country, noting that Democrats are still angry about Senate Republicans' refusal to act on Garland's nomination in the final year of Obama's presidency.

The Democratic leader also reportedly warned the president against nominating a potential justice to the Supreme Court who would vote to overturn Roe V. Wade, stating that such a move would be "cataclysmic" and damaging to Trump's legacy, according to a person familiar with the call.

Schumer previously wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times that a potential nominee's position on abortion rights could likely be a deciding factor in their Senate nomination battle.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/395617-schumer-privately-asked-trump-to-nominate-merrick-garland-to-supreme-court

[Girard442]

1. Are you f****ing kidding me?

[yardwork]

69. Seems like a clever way to troll Trump and remind people of the Republicans' hypocrisy.

[Hortensis]

81. Are you? Surely you wouldn't rather have an archconservative

who'll ignore and reverse precedents in civil liberties and progressive government to subject the will of the people to the wealthy? As opposed to a top legal scholar with centrist views, who is widely respected and admired by his few equals?

Or is it that you imagine Senator Schumer doesn't know what he's doing?

Maybe read about both Gorsuch and Schumer, and think of Schumer as a...general. Not one of the "stupid" generals of Trump's imaginings either. In either case, best put that knee in neutral and engage brain? Your own life, and/or lives of those you love, could depend on it.

Besides, even though Trump might have accepted, and might still (stranger things have happened), chances were almost nil. This was a strategic political move by Schumer.

It's going to be a bumpy ride, and understanding what's happening will at least help prevent some unnecessary emotional bruising.

[Midwestern Democrat]

88. Well, I'd rather pay $50,000 for a $750,000 home too - but I got a feeling if I made that offer,

the seller would tell me to "Get the hell out of here and don't ever contact me again". Nobody likes having their time wasted and their intelligence insulted with ridiculous, incredibly one sided offers/proposals.

[ehrnst]

89. So you think this is worth bashing Schumer for? (nt)

[unblock]

2. Well there was a 0.0001% chance he would have done that before

Not that he knows it's what Schumer wants, the chances are less than zero.

[BeyondGeography]

3. Well, that's utterly embarrassing

I hope he said pretty please, at least.

[Hawaii Hiker]

4. And Trump did this

[TheCowsCameHome]

6. Tell me this isn't true. Please.

WTF

And he warned Trump that it would damage his legacy????????????

It's time to go, Chuck.

[LenaBaby61]

26. "It's time to go, Chuck."

I've never liked Schumer. EVER.

Calling Schumer "weak sauce" insults weak sauce.

[jrthin]

35. His time is way over due.

After he tried the high road act against Mazine, I called his office and said that I don't think he is the voice for our time.

[LenaBaby61]

63. Thank you for calling his office .....

And if his assistant told him what you said about him calling Maxine out, he probably couldn't care LESS. Probably thinking about how to schmooze up to tRump who called him cryin' Chuck Schumer

He really needs to go. He's no voice of the Dem party.

[zanana1]

95. I don't think he did anything terrible.

He was just trying to persuade Trump that it would be in his best interest if he didn't nominate an extremist.

[LiberalFighter]

7. What makes Schumer think that DT will consider Garland?

Have to question his motives.

[forgotmylogin]

24. If DT were smart and wanted to gain a TON of goodwill from those against him...

...that actually wouldn't be a bad strategic move.

It isn't going to happen, though.

[Hortensis]

83. Not too late to start, LiFer

Btw, fighting should start after identifying allies and enemies. First do no harm.

Just a thought.

[elleng]

8. Not the Onion, I guess.

[PatSeg]

9. "...damaging to Trump's legacy"?!?!

That's the funniest thing I've heard all day!

It was a pretty shrewd idea on Schumer's part and a relatively reasonable president would probably consider it. I wouldn't hold my breath on this one though.

[MGKrebs]

12. I agree. Not sure I understand the disdain here.

No harm in asking is there?

I wonder who leaked it. Since all the info comes from Schumer's side it's almost certainly from his office.
And if Garland was qualified in 2016 why wouldn't he be qualified now? I think it's a pretty savvy move.

[PatSeg]

17. Yes, very savvy

It would also make McConnell look like a total fool, something he really deserves.

I think if the suggestion came at just the right time, Trump might actually consider it, but you just know he would change his mind in a couple of hours. Look at how reasonable he was about DACA kids and gun legislation for a few minutes.

[lapucelle]

45. ,,,

[onetexan]

59. i don't see any harm in asking either

worst the idiot-in-chief could do is say no and select one of his ilks, which we assume he's gonna do anyway.

[RobinA]

71. I Don't Either

It's a hail Mary pass. If it doesn't work (likely) it's no harm no foul. If it does (very unlikely) it's a better outcome for this very important situation than one could ever expect. Lotta liberals don't even like Garland, which is certainly a selling point. This is Trump we're talking about. I might say to him, Hey, Obama couldn't get this guy confirmed, but I bet you can. Remember, Trump isn't the sharpest tool.

[Hekate]

75. There are some really mondo bizarro posts here, almost like some people...

..have no idea what "politics" is.

[NYC Liberal]

41. "a relatively reasonable president" -so that rules out basically all the Republicans now in office.

[PatSeg]

53. That's for sure

The entire party is clearly schizophrenic now. When I was young, I remember the republicans as being more the "grownups". Though I largely disagreed with them, they were rational and reasonable. One could carry on an intelligent debate with them. Now they are all carnival barkers and snake oil salesmen.

[Hortensis]

84. First the leaders were corrupted, then being

a loyal follower required supporting them in corruption. And in that way most followers became so corrupted they'll now even support extremely cruelty to children. All in service to their country.

[Chicago1980]

10. How pathetic...

Another reason for new blood.

Diplomacy doesn't work with these people.

[erronis]

28. So, are you suggesting new blood that doesn't want to deal via diplomacy?

Is that what the forces antagonistic to democracy want? Get rid of diplomats and people that have studied history?

[LanternWaste]

44. Try to look beyond one simplistic dimension. it's difficult and takes disciplined, but it's worth it

Your reponse, wholly unsupported by any objective evidence plus the polarity of the Tide Pod challenge convince me new blood is just another bumper-sticker lacking any rational thought behind it.

[Hortensis]

85. "New blood" seems to mean mindless hostility for too many.

The Democratic Party has a conservative wing, a fair number of left-wing extremists, and always those fringe pegs who don't fit anywhere and can roll off various directions, but I'm pretty sure most of them don't realize that about themselves.

Same here in the deep south, where a number of lifelong Republicans might be very insulted if I told them I suspected they were liberal by nature.

[ehrnst]

67. "New blood" would not do the basic crossing of Ts and dotting of Is?

or would they, like you, simply call doing first things first, "pathetic?"

If that's "New Blood," it's not going to be very effective, just loud and combative.

You have to learn to play checkers before you play chess.

[roamer65]

11. Schumer is actually right.

It is what a sane president would do to heal the divide, but with this insane whack job there is zero chance.

Now at least he can say he tried to negotiate.

[secondwind]

23. Bingo!

[forgotmylogin]

25. Yep. If DT were shrewd, nominating Garland would be a massive chess move by him.

He could gloat for a week how bipartisan and nonbiased he is. It would take the heat off this rush to confirm someone and some pressure off all the Reps up for reelection in midterms.

Heck even just pretending to consider Garland would be good for optics.

[LenaBaby61]

30. When you're owned by and have only ONE master in putin ...

You're not going to entertain listening to ANYTHING anyone has to say from the USA, let along from Schumer. Didn't Fatso call him "Crying Chuck Schumer?" Such respect for Schumer

tRump's allegiance to oligarchy and to turning this country into a complete MESS, and into the USSA because putin wants it that way, OR ELSE.

[Hortensis]

86. Let's not assume he's blackmailed ONLY

by Putin. From what we've learned, he's lead such an incompetently corrupt, and depraved, life that I'd be surprised if one or more of our American blocs wasn't holding something over him. Money is power, and our extremist billionaire opponents have enormous power.

Trump doesn't know what it is to know something. Do you? Imo, a LOT more respect for experts is in order. Especially for those on our side. Rejecting the value of expertise is a right-wing ploy (and dutiful fault for dutiful right-wing followers).

[LenaBaby61]

93. I trust our experts ....

And also in the process, but tRump won't and can't. He has to continue trashing them in any way he can, also destroy their reputations, because putin told him to, and he's also trying his best to normalize a murderous, greedy, authoritarian, ex-kgb agent who wants tRump to help him keep Crimea, have all US
sanctions againt him lifted, stay in power forever (Just like tRump wants to). On top of tRump trashing our Intel agencies, he goes after Dems and he's been going after Mueller by name. putin's coordinating and chiming in & saying that the 'witch hunters' going after his boy are all 'deep state' members. We see tRump weakening our country, we've seen him speaking for a long time about getting rid of NATO--Replacing it of course with nothing because Vlad doesn't want anything to replace NATO so he's free to roam & maraud all over in Europe. All of the relationships we had with our allies are slowly dissolving. tRump feels free to normalize putin by saying that he's "fine." tRump's dog and pony show with putin will further dissolve our standing in the world and further destroy whatever relationship we have left with our allies. Of course most in the treasonous GOP are fine with this, because they're on tRump's/putin's side.

Finally, I'll stuck to what I said and it's that putin is running our foreign policy, he's the head puppet master and the only person tRump cares about or listens to. putin's mined him since about 2013, and he has to pay his puppet master back for all he's done in helping him to become president. I explained that I trust the process and our Intel agencies, but enough cannot be said about what former FBI director James Comey did to Hillary Clinton. He "decided" to inform Congress 11 days before the 2016 GE, that he was re-opening an FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server (Comey himself used Gmail for official FBI business numerous times 🙄 ). He still defends this "decision" by saying that he was "sure" Hillary was going to win the election. Meanwhile, the FBI/CIA had been investigating tRump's campaign, yet that never came out until way after the fact. We also know that many agents working out of that SDNY office, Ghouliani's old playground, hated Hillary because they felt she'd gotten away with "so much," whatever so much means. In general, they hated Hillary enough to coordinate with other rogue agents in that office to hold onto those so-called "newly" discovered classified emails found on Weiner's laptop for as long as they could, NOT go through them (Which would have shown that the emails weren't new at all--they were the SAME ones already gone through) then drop them into Comey's lap at the last minute, which lead Comey to re-open something that should never have been re-opened. But his announcement put the cherry on top of other things which destroyed a Hillary Clinton presidency. As for Andrew McCabe, people are still trying to find out what this former FBI deputy directors role in all of this mess was. We know what tRump feels about him.

So yes, I trust the process and our Intel agencies for the most part still, but for tRump to also have been investigated and Comey to not think that it warranted a mention because he felt that Hillary would win the presidency was ridiculous to say the least.

[Hortensis]

94. Actually, I so agree. I was referring to trashing

Senator Schumer and others as idiots who have to "go," but what you're addressing, basically absolutely.

The question isn't whether there is massive subversive right-wing conspiracy to change our nation into something its people would never vote for if asked to. There is.

Among many questions are how many conspiracies, who's allied in which with what goals, what have they done, which are actionable crimes, etc. And of course people in the FBI, including Comey and McCabe, misused their offices to throw power to the right. Who are they working with, besides high-ups in the NYT and AP, of course? Also of course the dominionist right is conspiring, with overlap with conservative religious billionaires. Of course there's a whole Koch "libertarian" bloc. Russia and its export of corruption helping them all.

Again, so agree.

[LisaM]

31. I agree.

Trump is so capricious anyway, and he's like a kid on a merry-go-round, grasping for the meaningless brass ring. If it ends up saying Merrick Garland on it, so much the better.

[Snellius]

34. +agree Schumer's just making the rhetorical point for the record

[Sanders4life]

37. Our media is unfortunately why this won't happen.

You would think it would heal the divide, but our side of the media (everything besides faux news), would quickly switch from news of the positive nomination to whatever Trump does next warranting bashing. That means any good will this nomination would buy would be fleeting at best.

Trump's disdain for the media at least says he's aware of this fact.

[forthemiddle]

43. So a Dem President would nominate a moderate Republican?

Especially when his party controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House?
Right....

[Hoyt]

46. Agree. It's better than screaming and stomping our feet, which is

the other option.

Don’t expect trump to do it or come up with a honestly great health plan (or even consider both), but he might hit his head and realize he could actually do something worthwhile.

[EricJohnson]

48. While the advice is good, giving it to Trumper isn't wise. Trumper is a

sociopath and would probably nominate Garland if Schumer demanded he NOT.

[Yupster]

61. A sane president would do that?

I don't think so.

The Democratic voters absolutely hate Trump.

So Trump nominates a moderate Democratic judge to the SC? He said he could shoot someone at Times Square and not lose support. That may be true, but nominating a Democratic judge would lose him half his conservative support overnight. He'd have to be insane to do that.

So, maybe it was worth asking.

[ehrnst]

66. Yep - and he would be criticized as "meek" or "ineffectual" for not putting it forth

likely by many here on DU who are mocking him for doing this.

[JHan]

73. exactly. I'm truly mystified by some other replies in this thread.

[Hortensis]

87. Guessing more useful as Rorhsach-type clues than otherwise.

Of course, it's always possible a couple are hostile agents, paid or unpaid.

[exboyfil]

13. A trade to call off the dogs on the Russia investigation?

I am not saying to do it, but it could be crafted like the South African Reconciliation process. Past sins are forgiven, and we move forward with competing parties that aren't at each others throats?

I would have approached McConnell first about it, and someone "Justice" would have to be worked out.

If such a thing was to happen, then everybody clutch their rosary beads and pray for Ginsberg's health.

[MGKrebs]

21. Interesting, but if there is one thing we know about the Trumpster,

no deal is ever honored. He will break any deal, any time, for any or no reason.
So, let's make a deal, then we get to break it later!

[Yupster]

68. That was my first thought

The South African reconciliation process isn't going too well right now. Neither would any deal made with Trump.

[bucolic_frolic]

14. That would be a healing gesture

and unfortunately it would help Trump consolidate power

Of course it won't happen

[Tatiana]

15. Attempting to negotiate like NY acquaintances or pals. How's that working for us?

We need someone who will be more adversarial. You can't negotiate with hostage takers. Those children in cages, those babies are hostages.

We need to adopt insurgent tactics and Chuck is not the person who can lead our brigade.

[Orangepeel]

16. Why are people upset about this?

Of course Trump isn’t going to do it, but it is what he *should* do. What’s the harm of reminding people that Garland’s seat was stolen?

[riversedge]

18. I am not upset. I am glad Schumer asked Trump.

[ancianita]

38. Me, too. It creates a space for developing good will and good governance. Which the country needs.

[IronLionZion]

36. It doesn't hurt to ask for what we want

Trump has done impulsive things before and ignored his own advisers.

Some people like to be upset, it's a choice.

[GoCubsGo]

90. Because there are some here for whom Chuck Schumer can do nothing right.

But, I'm not one of them. I'm with you. I doubt he's expecting Spanky to even consider his request. It was just a way of reminding people about McConnell's bullshit. Although, I do think there was a "Hail Mary" aspect to it, considering how petty and vindictive Trump is. If Trump decides on a whim to screw over McConnell anyone else involved, what better way to do it than to stray from that list he was handed?

[pnwmom]

19. Good idea. It shows once again that the Dems are reasonable and Trump is not.

And it reminds the public that Garland SHOULD be on the Supreme Court.

[stopbush]

20. If you're looking for a reason for the Rs to consider impeaching tRump

this would be it.

[murielm99]

22. I think Schumer did the right thing. n/t

[PoliticAverse]

27. I wonder who laughed first. n/t

[andym]

29. I hope Schumer used a Russian accent

and tried to pretend to be Putin, so that Trump might actually listen to him.

[LanternWaste]

32. By doing this, Schumer made certain his t's are crossed and his i's dotted...

...for the upcoming confirmation hearings.



I gave the bullies (real bullies-- not the other students who simply mocked the bullies that we're told "makes us look bad&quot in middle school the same chance to back off. It cleaned my hands.

[ancianita]

39. Exactly. A wise move on his part.

[BlueJac]

40. What is wrong with Chuck Schumer?

[George II]

57. What's wrong with him? Nothing except that he's not he who shall not be mentioned.

[SunSeeker]

62. LOL

[ehrnst]

64. Why don't you tell us? (nt)

[NYC Liberal]

42. I hope nobody here actually believes Schumer thought Trump would do it.

This wasn't meant to seriously ask Trump to nominate Merrick Garland. It was a political move to remind the public, again, that the seat was stolen by the Republicans.

[mcar]

47. Good move on Schumer's part

Play to dotard's ego and get Garland's name back in the media.

[Rhiannon12866]

49. Of course that's the only thing that makes sense

Which means that's the last thing that Trump would ever do!

[Tarc]

50. It's worth a shot, but Trump's ego is simply too massive to ever let a sane thought penetrate

If Obama said he eats at McDonalds 3 meals a day, Trump would become a vegan simply out of spite.

There's no way he could ever nominate someone that Obama thought was a good person.

[YOHABLO]

51. He was an Obama pick for god's sake. Does Schumer really think Trump would go for that? OMG.

[RobinA]

72. If I Were Schumer

I'd take a shot by highlighting the fact that Obama could not get this good and honorable American who has been tough on crime considered, let alone seated. Opportunity for Trump to one up Obama.

[Turbineguy]

52. He did something.

At least he can say, "I told you so!"

I used to world for a company that would not buy spare parts. The temptation was not to order spares, since they would not send them anyway. The fact is that even when you know it's hopeless, you have to do the right thing.

[in2herbs]

54. Beyond words

[still_one]

55. Gee, I guess he should have done the same strategy that some self-identifed progressives did in 2016

by refusing to vote for the Democratic nominee. They sure made their point, and they were tough too, not only were they happy to do it at the time, but they expressed absolutely NO REGRET and were proud they did it a year and a half later

So people are using THIS as an excuse to bash Schumer. WTF

There is an election coming up in November, and some are getting bent out of shape over THIS.

Let's just see if we can f**k things up in November, because it sure seems their are some elements who want to do everything in their power to bring divisiveness with ever nuance or utterance a Democratic Congress person makes if it rubs them the wrong.

Jon Stewart said it perfectly, the Democratic party is a circular firing squad.

This is the most important issue to get pissed off about?

This is f**king insane.

We lost TWO SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS with the help some people who identified themselves as liberal, because they refused to vote for the DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE, by either voting third party or NOT VOTING.


Every Senator running for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the ESTABLISHMENT, INCUMBENT, republican.


Let's see what happens in November if we keep this crap up. We are doing the right wing's job for them.


f**k it

[George II]

56. Good for him. It was a long shot but certainly worth a shot in the first place.

[Shrek]

58. Even if he did it the Senate would just refuse to consent

And then claim that their previous tactics are vindicated because it's all about the nominee and it doesn't matter who the president is.

[Raine]

60. WOW, Trump listening to a minority leader

never going to happen!

[ehrnst]

65. Of course if he didn't ask directly or demand it, he'd be skewered by those here who

are mocking him now....

[Napolion]

70. He would never nominate him nt

[Hekate]

74. Smart move. At one time the GOP said he was acceptable, & he IS a sober type, not an ideologue...

Chance if you don't try: zero.
This way Schumer gets to troll Trump and the GOP both.

[FarPoint]

76. Even the Hill Newspaper....

Publishes Flaimbait

[saidsimplesimon]

77. Reaching across the aisle

are you Senator Schumer?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

?rel=0" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[jg10003]

78. and Al Gore for EPA administrator

[jgmiller]

79. We never learn

I suggested something similar the other day except once again if this is true Schumer didn't learn from the school of Trump. Talking to him privately and suggesting things does nothing, this guy attacks in public.

Schumer should have put out a tweet as soon as Kennedy announced his retirement stating that if Trump nominated Garland and he was approved the dems would vote for his stupid border wall. Put Trump and Mitch in a bad place, use their own words against them. Odds are Trump would never do it but the worst that would happen would be that next year when the dems take back the house we defund the idiocy. We need to fight this guy on his own turf, I'm not saying being crazy and obnoxious like him but fight like him.

[MGKrebs]

82. Well, Schumer talked to him and then leaked it to the press,

so I'm sure it made it's way to twitter somehow, if that's important to you.

And we don't know if Schumer offered anything in return or not (but I doubt he did). The School of Trump would teach that trying to make a deal with the idiot is just an invitation to be insulted and abused, and useless in the end anyway.

I don't know if Schumer has some trick up his sleeve as far as delaying this vote or not, but I guess we'll see.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

80. This could be a photo of Schumer asking Trump to nominate a moderate ...

No, wait, that's not Schumer, but the outcome will be just as productive ...

[Red Mountain]

91. He's just messing with him

Maybe he's so far gone he'd consider it......but I doubt Chuck is counting on that.

[CTyankee]

92. PLEASE! Chuck was trying to save Roe v. Wade, among other vital causes we Dems care about

deeply. Stop and think before you criticize.

Smh...