Analysis: Filibuster Over Gorsuch is Bad for Democrats

8268378_web1_ap17088727205438

WASHINGTON — Debra J. Saunders writes: A favorite truism in Washington these days is: “Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.” It tells the cautionary tale of how Republicans who wanted to run Washington got what they wanted and now must govern.

Here’s another quote for the swamp to consider: “Be careful what you scorn, you may someday become it.”

It has been a favorite pastime of elected Democrats to poke fun at the House Freedom Caucus because the rump is ideologically extreme and frequently self-destructive. Senate Democrats now seem poised to overtake the Freedom Caucus in the race away from moderation and the ability to shoot one’s party in the foot. To wit, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is primed to block the U.S. Supreme Court confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch.

Gorsuch is the one decision President Donald Trump made and executed flawlessly. In September 2016, Trump released a list of 21 judges from which he pledged to pick a Supreme Court nominee. Gorsuch, 49, was on the list.

Gorsuch has such solid credentials that the American Bar Association unanimously rated him “well qualified” to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court — its highest rating. In other words, Trump did not pick a flame thrower.

8268378_web1_8268378-591e92b3f02045729e530342a005468b.jpg

George Washington University law school professor Jonathan Turley, who is no Trump fan, argues that Gorsuch is a smart choice because of the Coloradan’s intellect. In USA Today, Turley wrote that he does not expect Gorsuch to change his “deep and well-established jurisprudential views,” which are conservative. “However, I expect he will go wherever his conscience takes him regardless of whether it proves a track to the left or the right.”

As Gorsuch told the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings, “It is the role of judges to apply, not alter, the work of the people’s representatives. A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge.”

Confirmed previously

In 2006 the Senate confirmed Gorsuch’s appointment to the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals by unanimous consent. Schumer was in the Senate at the time. So how could Schumer tell the Washington Post on Thursday that it is “virtually impossible” to expect him and a majority of the Senate’s 47 other Democrats not to filibuster Gorsuch and deny him a simple up-or-down vote? Read the rest of this entry »


[VIDEO] Charles Krauthammer: McConnell on Nuclear Option Threat

nuke-reid

 


[VIDEO] SUPERCUTS! REWIND: Liberals LOVED Nuking the Filibuster in 2013

HarryNuke

 


Exploding Cigar? Nuclear Option Could Make Repealing Obamacare Easier

reid- hallway

Alex Pappas writes: Conservatives are outraged over Harry Reid pulling the trigger on the so-called nuclear option in the Senate, making it impossible for Republicans to stop President Obama from nominating anyone he wants to positions in the government.

But some on the right are finding comfort in the theory that Reid’s legislative maneuver could actually make it easier for Republicans to eventually repeal Obamacare — if all the pieces come together in 2017.

On Thursday, Senate Democrats — led by Reid, the Senate majority leader — took the drastic step of changing the body’s rules to prevent Republicans from being able to filibuster most of the president’s nominees. Read the rest of this entry »


[VIDEO] Legendary ’60s Political Ad Updated: Senate Filibuster Nuclear Option Remix

What a difference eight years and a Senate majority makes. Back in 2005, Senate Democrats (including Barack Obama) were in the minority – and dead-set against a Republican plan to allow judicial nominations to proceed to an up-or-down vote based on a simple majority. The so-called nuclear option, warned Obama and others, would have the Founders spinning in their graves and usher in a tyranny of the majority in the world’s greatest deliberative body.

But now, faced with a truculent Republican Senate minority, the Democrats done just that, effectively overturning 200 years of precedent. For more on what it all means.

Approx. 50 seconds.

Reason.com


Folly: Harry Reid’s Many 2005 Press Releases Against Reforming The Filibuster

Read the rest of this entry »