Chuck Schumer is about to spend a lot of time taking on the 2007 version of himself.

Today, the heir apparent to lead the Senate Democrats is spearheading the charge against Republicans for pre-emptively blocking President Barack Obama from replacing the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.


But in 2007, while in the majority and salivating over the prospect of a Democratic president being elected, Schumer delivered a speech to the American Constitution Society that is now Republicans’ go-to line when deflecting criticism over obstruction.

Dubbed the “Schumer Standard” by Republicans, the New York Democrat at that time called on his colleagues to “reverse the presumption of confirmation” for judicial nominees offered by then President George W. Bush. It’s a phrase that Republicans will use against him, and the White House, as long as they can to defend their tactics of denying a third Supreme Court pick to Obama.

“We’re embracing this precedent that Sen. Chuck Schumer advocated for back in 2007. ... If it’s good enough for them when they’re in the majority, then it’s good enough for us when we are,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) on Dallas radio on Wednesday. “This is a hypocritical argument on the part of Sen. Schumer.”

The stakes in this showdown are huge. Democrats either get a nominee to replace the conservative Scalia on the high court, potentially changing the balance of power on the panel for years to come, or a political cudgel to wield against Republicans that could help them win back the Senate in November. At this point, it seems Republicans are happy to block any nominee, rather than risk tilting the court to the left.

While Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, is a critical player in the fight as well, Schumer has emerged at the center of the brewing conflict. It’s classic Schumer — in the middle of everything and being talked about by everybody. At the same time, retiring Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is happy to give Schumer a pivotal opportunity to battle with Republicans and show he can take the heat.

For his part, Schumer said during a conference call with progressive activists on Wednesday that the two situations couldn’t be more different. “One’s apples, one’s oranges,” Schumer told reporters, declaring that he never recommended that Senate Democrats categorically disregard any nomination from Bush, especially before a nomination was even made.

“What I said in 2007 is, after a hearing, if senators felt that a nominee was out of the mainstream and wasn’t being forthright about it, they should vote no, and that’s still my position today,” Schumer said. “That doesn’t reflect on whether there should be a hearing or vote.”

Fellow Democrats have rallied to Schumer’s side, pointing out that he never said there shouldn’t be a hearing or vote on a Bush selection.

“The Republican attack on him shows they’re simply trying to distract and distort the issue here and continue to obstruct” Scalia's replacement, said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who serves on the Judiciary Committee with Schumer. “The point here is what Sen. Schumer said then [in his 2007 speech] was in no way that the Senate should refuse to vote or reject a nominee sight unseen. He said, in effect, there should be a hearing, there should be a vote.”

Blumenthal added: “The positions he took then and now are completely consistent. It’s only the Republican position to distort and distract — that is what they’re doing here.”

Indeed, Schumer never explicitly said the process should not get moving, although neither did Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in his surprisingly quick move to derail an Obama pick after the disclosure of Scalia’s death over the past weekend.

While many in Washington interpreted McConnell’s statement as a vow to not even consider a nominee, people close to the GOP leader insist that’s not the case. Still, for McConnell and his majority, blocking an Obama Supreme Court nominee has emerged as a key barometer of whether they can deliver for their conservative base. So far, the majority of the GOP caucus is digging in behind McConnell, although a handful of Republicans have suggested they’re not entirely comfortable refusing even a hearing or courtesy consideration of an Obama pick.

In his 2007 speech, Schumer did lean hard into what seems to be an equally obstructive posture. While there was no Supreme Court vacancy as the time, the New York Democrat said Supreme Court confirmation hearings are “often meaningless” and that it “pained” him in retrospect that he didn’t do more to stifle the appointment of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

“It’s kind of a gift for Republicans,” said Carrie Severino, a former clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas and now the policy director for the Judicial Crisis Network, which opposes any Senate confirmation this year. “Sure it’s apples to oranges. At one point, it was a Republican nominee. Now it’s a Democratic nominee.”

A Senate Democratic aide acknowledged that Schumer is “vulnerable” on the issue and cast the episode as a major trial for how the presumptive majority leader will handle becoming the lightning rod for the Democratic Caucus once he takes over for Reid.

“Chuck has a unique ability. When he takes a position, he does it with so much fanfare,” the aide said.

For his part, Reid has already lobbed some barbs of his own, although Schumer has been cast as the Democratic villain as he readies for his top spot in the leadership hierarchy.

“My Republican counterpart, McConnell, has made a terrible mistake by saying that he is going to ignore the president. Presidents are elected for four-year terms. The president was reelected for a four-year term, not a three-year term,” Reid told reporters in Reno on Wednesday. “The American people are going to make them pay if they jerk the president around on this.”

Of course, the dirty secret about the Senate is that if you’ve served there long enough, it’s likely you’ve been on every side of any debate. And McConnell’s baggage on the matter piles nearly as high as Schumer’s, as Democrats began circulating a greatest hits of the Kentucky Republican’s previous comments on Democrats blocking Bush nominees.

“All of these judges are entitled to an up-or-down vote,” McConnell said in 2007 when asked about a hypothetical Supreme Court vacancy.

Yet for McConnell, blocking Obama’s judicial appointments has been something of a calling card, particularly after Democrats changed the chamber’s rules in 2013 and then rammed through dozens of new judges — each with lifetime appointments — on mostly party-line votes. As majority leader during the past year, McConnell has parceled out floor votes on district and appeals court appointees at a rate of barely one a month, an effective way of blunting Obama's influence on an issue that galvanizes Republicans across ideological lines.

For Schumer, the fight over the Supreme Court vacancy is perhaps his first major test to advocate for his caucus and president as the Democratic leader in waiting. It is also a chance to make amends with a White House that is still angry with the New York Democrat over his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, as White House press secretary Josh Earnest’s comments on Wednesday made clear.

Schumer elbowed into the Sunday shows over the weekend to blast McConnell and predict the GOP would fold in the Supreme Court fight, and he took part in Wednesday’s conference call with liberal activists like the Progressive Change Campaign Committee to attack McConnell and his Republican members on Wednesday afternoon.

“The level of obstruction we’ve seen since Saturday is wrong. It’s unprecedented. It’s mind-boggling,” Schumer said. “When the hard right doesn’t get its way, their immediate reaction is: Shut it down. And Sen. McConnell marches in lockstep. That’s what happened in 2013” when the federal government closed for 16 days.

It’s an aggressive move for Schumer, known as a sharp-elbowed partisan who also can get deals done with the GOP. By beating McConnell over the head on an issue where Schumer himself is a flawed messenger, the New York Democrat is stepping directly into the line of Republican fire that for years had been reserved for Reid.

However, in just 11 months, Schumer will have Reid’s old job, so there’s perhaps no better testing ground for his relationship with McConnell than the biggest political fight of the year.