Dems to Filibuster All Supreme Court Nominees

Daniel Greenfield,

That simplifies things.

Back in the Obama days, the Dem line was that the President of the United States could nominate anyone he wanted and that the Senate had a Constitutional duty to hold hearings, advise and consent, and that was that. Or at the very least, Merrick Garland deserved a hearing and an up and down vote.

Now the new message is that the Dems will filibuster anyone Trump nominates. Forget the whole “he deserves a hearing” and an “up and down vote” thing. That right was just canceled. Also now the Senate has far more powers than it used to and the filibuster is the great guardian of democracy.

JEFF-MERKLEY_small Dems to Filibuster All Supreme Court Nominees Democratic Party

Because when you’re on the left, self-righteous ideological tantrums nicely take the place of consistency of principle.

Senate Democrats are going to try to bring down President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court pick no matter who the president chooses to fill the current vacancy.

With Trump prepared to announce his nominee on Tuesday evening, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said in an interview on Monday morning that he will filibuster any pick that is not Merrick Garland and that the vast majority of his caucus will oppose Trump’s nomination. That means Trump’s nominee will need 60 votes to be confirmed by the Senate.

“This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat,” Merkley said in an interview. “We will use every lever in our power to stop this.”

Except that Dems had blocked Bush judicial nominees indefinitely. Also Obama only nominated Merrick Garland, rather than a hard line leftist radical, because he didn’t think Garland would get in and was trying for his best shot against Republicans.

Merkley insists that he’ll filibuster any Trump pick who isn’t Garland. Would he have done the same to Hillary?

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she wouldn’t be bound by President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, hinting that she would consider a bolder choice if she takes office in January with the seat still unfilled.

Clinton would “look broadly and widely for people who represent the diversity of our country” 

Garland would have been gone faster than you can say Huma Abedin. And no Democrat would have mourned that stolen seat.

The claim that it’s Garland’s seat by right is hypocritical nonsense, like everything else coming out of the left. If Hillary had nominated Garland, they would been the first to fight the nomination.