House Dems Thought This Tweet Was a Banger. It Backfired Epically.
The Plaintiffs in the Louisiana Map Case Are Probably Not Happy With the...
Hochul Signs Law Forcing GPS Speed Limiters Into Private Vehicles
Has James Talarico Cringed Himself Into a Corner?
This Federal Judge Just Blocked Trump's 'Anti-Weaponization Fund'
What Happened to 'I'm Speaking,' Democrats?
James Talarico Respects Women So Much He's Come Up With a New Woke...
Seattle Just Acquitted Another Violent Criminal Due to Mental Health Issues
Two of Media's Biggest Propagandists Are Worried CBS and CNN Might Actually Commit...
Jill Biden Was Reportedly Furious With Kamala Harris As the VP Pushed Biden...
Here's Which Politician Spencer Pratt Looks Up To
Here's the Big Lesson Government Should Take From Private Enterprise
Why Do Republican AGs Want to Stop a Pro-Consumer Business Deal?
Inside the Messy Immigration Funding Fight in Congress
Kathy Hochul Just Launched a New War on ICE
Tipsheet

Democratic Senator Who Thought Filibustering Judges Was Tyranny Of The Minority Now Supports Blocking Gorsuch

Democratic Senator Who Thought Filibustering Judges Was Tyranny Of The Minority Now Supports Blocking Gorsuch

Guy wrote about Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) said in 2013, that filibustering judges was nothing more than tyranny of the minority. This is what he said:

I think what our role is, is to step out there, advise and consent, and if we don't believe the person's qualified, if there's some real serious problem, vote against them. You remember Bork. He wasn't filibustered. He was voted down, 58 votes against him. People like Scalia, everybody says, oh, well, there are going to be more Scalias. Scalia passed unanimously. Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court passed with just three votes against her, 96-3. So the issue really is advice and consent, not with supermajorities. Right now, we have the tyranny of the minority. And that's what we have taken care of."
Advertisement

Well, that was 2013 Udall, who’s been kidnapped by 2017 Udall. The New Mexico Senator now says he will hop on Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s inane ‘filibuster Gorsuch’ train and oppose his nomination (Albuquerque Journal):

Sen. Tom Udall will oppose the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying that the 10th Circuit Appeals Court judge failed to answer key questions during his Senate confirmation hearings this week.

Udall’s announcement comes in the wake of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s call on Thursday to filibuster Gorsuch. Sen. Martin Heinrich, a New Mexico Democrat, has not yet publicly said whether her intends to vote for or against Gorsuch’s nomination.

“I have met with Judge Gorsuch, followed the hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and studied his record, and decided that I can’t support his confirmation,” Udall said in a statement provided to the Journal. “He failed to answer questions that are critical for me — his position on the rights of working mothers, whether women can choose their own health care decisions, LGBTQ rights, and dark money in our elections.”

Ever since Schumer announced his intention to lead this idiotic crusade to block Gorsuch, all eyes are on the nine or so Senate Democrats who have said that Trump’s Supreme Court nominee—Gorsuch—should get a hearing and a vote. What that is remains to be seen. Are they talking about the panel vote? Do they mean cloture? If it is cloture, then that’s the ballgame. Gorsuch will get the 60 votes to end debate and move his nomination for a final vote in which only a majority is needed for confirmation. If it isn’t, well—Democrats are acting dumber than usual, trying to cater to their hyper left wing base that demands all-out war against Trump’s agenda, despite the party being ill-equipped to put up much of a fight against Republicans. You would think that Senate Democrats would opt to keep their powder dry for when the balance of the Court would be threatened (in their eyes) if a second vacancy should occur during Trump’s presidency. Instead, they’re lining up for this circus, where a conservative is replacing a conservative on the Supreme Court.

Advertisement

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement