A Bar Patron Had a Total Meltdown During the Super Bowl. The Reason...
Maybe We Should Be Glad Bad Bunny Performed in Spanish
Notice Where This Ex-ESPN Reporter's Attempt to Mock Conservatives Over Bad Bunny Laughabl...
Why Are Americans Fleeing Blue States for Red States?
Let’s Rip Democrats Apart for Fun (and Because They’re Truly Awful)
Faith, Not Foul-Mouthed Scolds, Shined at the Grammys
Is There Any Good News Out There?
Has There Been Voter Fraud?
When Canadians Were Actually Funny
The Student ICE Walkouts Are a Troubling Reminder of How Revolutionaries Are Made
America’s Security Doesn’t End at the Ice’s Edge
Talks About Talks: How Tehran Is Buying Time While Washington Hesitates
Girl Scout Cookies vs. the Inverted Food Pyramid
SBA Prioritizes American Citizens for New Loans
Let ICE Do Its Job
Tipsheet

Reid On Threats That GOP Could Nuke Filibuster For SCOTUS: 'Let 'Em Do It'

In 2013, Senate Democrats nuked the filibuster rules for non-Supreme Court presidential appointments. It had to be done in their eyes. Yet, as Senate Democrats made their announcement, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) mentioned how filibusters really should only be used for treaties and impeachment. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) lamented that when it comes to majority rule, the risk of an up-or-down votes is preferred than total obstruction “no matter who is in power.” Flash-forward to 2017 and we have Democrats planning to block Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch because a) he was picked by President Trump; b) he’s right-leaning; and c) they’re still sour over Merrick Garland, Obama’s initial pick to fill the late Antonin Scalia’s seat, being blocked by Senate Republicans via Biden rule. Those don’t sound like good reasons to filibuster a nominee. Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said that you couldn’t just filibuster a nominee just because you might disagree with him or her. She said this in 2006, when Democrats were mulling a filibuster of Samuel Alito, which a few did try. Feinstein and Barack Obama tried to block Alito and failed, despite the former saying that “gross moral turpitude” would be a prime example to mount such unprecedented obstruction.

Advertisement

Circling back to Reid, when asked whether he was worried that Republicans might expand on this—because no party is ever in the majority forever—the Senate’s biggest curmudgeon said “let ‘em do it.”

REPORTER: "Aren’t you worried Republicans will just get rid of the filibuster on the Supreme Court anyway?"

REID: "Let ’em do it, why in the world would we care? We were trying to protect everybody. I mean, they want simple majority, fine. I mean, all these threats about we’re going to change the rules more, as Senator Schumer said, ‘What is the choice?’ Continue like we are or have Democracy?”

Oh, that’s definitely on the table, Mr. Reid. Your party has unnecessarily played games with this nomination and now we’re going to finish what you started, so we can “have democracy.”

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos