Watch: Free Beacon's Brutal Video Hitting Democrats' Hypocrisy On Gorsuch Filibuster

Posted: Mar 30, 2017 12:35 PM

Guy touched upon this yesterday, but the Democratic hypocrisy—and their caving to the loony Left—has been nothing short of appalling concerning the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch. Senate Democrats are still sour about Republicans adhering to precedent (i.e. Biden rule) by not considering Supreme Court nominations during an election year and blocking Merrick Garland’s nomination, Obama’s pick to fill the vacancy left by the late Antonin Scalia. It’s that issue, coupled with one that still drives Democrats mad: Trump beat Hillary. The Democratic base demands all-out war against Trump’s agenda and this idiotic attempt to filibuster the highly qualified Gorsuch seems to be emblematic of that.

At least nine Democrats said that Gorsuch deserved a hearing and a vote. Now that the hearings are over, they’re saying they’re not filibustering, but they’re filibustering—demanding that he meet a 60-vote threshold. The filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee is rare. As I’ve mentioned before, even Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, long viewed as the spawns of Satan by Democrats, weren’t filibustered. They had an up-or-down vote. When Senate Democrats nuked the filibuster rules for all non-Supreme Court appointments in 2013, Schumer was the one who said that they'd rather the risk of an up-or-down vote than the risk of total obstruction “no matter who’s in power.” As they told us back then, elections have consequences. Indeed, they do, sir. And that road goes both ways. Even liberals have supported Gorsuch’s nomination. Besides folks who like setting dumpsters on fire to protest Trump, Senate Democrats have little in terms of support for this filibuster. Hence why Senate Republicans will have little trouble nuking the rules and confirming this man by a majority vote.

Over at the Free Beacon, David Rutz charted the history of hypocrisy in a brutal two-minute and 30 second video. The most egregious is Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), who openly said that the filibuster rules would be nuked for Clinton’s Supreme Court nominees. Yeah, that was when he thought he was going to be the next vice president:

"We much prefer the risk of up-or-down votes in majority rule than the risk of continued total obstruction," he said in 2013. "That's the bottom line, no matter who's in power."

Now, he points to a so-called 60-vote threshold that Gorsuch must clear, even though no previous Supreme Court nominee has been successfully filibustered.

Sen. Tom Udall (D., N.M.) also supported the nuclear option maneuver by the Democrats in 2013, telling CNN there was a "tyranny of the minority" with Republicans blocking some of Obama's picks. Now, he's supporting a filibuster of Gorsuch.

So is Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D., N.H.), who said in February she didn't know a single Democrat who wouldn't support giving Gorsuch a simple up-or-down vote.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.) admitted in February that Gorsuch would be confirmed regardless of any Democratic moves but said she hoped her colleagues would give Gorsuch an up-or-down vote. She's filibustering along with Schumer now as well.

Sen. Cory Booker's (D., N.J.) hypocrisy is particularly noteworthy. As one of many Democrats who was furious that Republicans did not hold hearings for Obama's nominee Merrick Garland in 2016, Booker said last year that if a Republican held the White House, he would support giving that president's nominee an up-or-down vote.


Sen. Tim Kaine (D., Va.), part of the unsuccessful Democratic ticket from 2016, told the Huffington Post last year that Democrats would do exactly what the Republicans are preparing to do with regard to the nuclear option in order to confirm a President Hillary Clinton's Supreme Court picks.

Well done, Washington Free Beacon. Well done. I especially like the last touch with Obama. Way to stick that knife in the back of Senate Democratic hypocrisy and twist.