Ed Whelan to Republicans: Reject the ‘Foolish Deal’
March 23, 2017
To keep up with conservative & legal experts on Twitter follow:
For the latest on Judge Gorsuch’s nomination: www.confirmgorsuch.com
Day 4 of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings
1. On National Review’s Bench Memos, Ed Whelan explains why Republicans should reject the “foolish deal” some Democrats may offer for the Gorsuch confirmation.
“There is no reason for any Senate Republicans to entertain this foolish deal. Such a deal would give Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer a preemptive veto over the next Supreme Court nominee.
“If Senate Democrats are serious about filibustering the Gorsuch nomination, that shows that there is no plausible nominee of a Republican president whom they wouldn’t filibuster—and no one worthwhile who would ever get Schumer’s okay.
“It’s time to put Senate Democrats to the test. If they defeat cloture on the Gorsuch nomination (by preventing 60 yes votes on cloture), the only sensible response from Senate Republicans is to do what Senate Democrats boasted they would do in the same scenario: abolish the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.”
2. The Washington Examiner reports that President Trump’s advisor on the Supreme Court does not see much merit to the rumored Democratic deal on the filibuster.
Leonard Leo: Democrats’ Proposed Gorsuch Deal Is ‘Delusional’
“Democrats must be delusional to think that Majority Leader McConnell or any of his Republican colleagues would reward Democrats for their awful treatment of Neil Gorsuch by agreeing to a 60-vote threshold for future Supreme Court nominations in exchange for a filibuster-free vote on Judge Gorsuch,” Leo said.
“‘One way or the other his confirmation is all but assured by now. This absurd ‘deal’ would prolong an environment in which Democrat Supreme Court nominees get up or down simple majority votes and Republican nominees get filibustered. That’s not a deal, it’s unilateral disarmament.’”
3. Erick Erickson thinks that Republicans should let Democrats face the consequences of their decision, when they held the majority, to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees.
Erickson: Democrats Made This Bed – Now They Must Sleep In It
“The reality is that Democrats scrapped the filibuster for judicial and executive nominations thinking they would never have to deal with the consequences. What they are now dealing with is called a consequence and Republicans should not relieve them of the consequence.
“If they do not like it, they should blame Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid. Lest you forget, both men confirmed they intended to scuttle the Supreme Court filibuster if Hillary Clinton became President and they took back the Senate.”
4. In The Resurgent, Patrick Fitzhenry points out that Democrats insist that Gorsuch should overturn precedent – except for when they argue that precedent is sacred.
Fitzhenry: Democrats Want It Both Ways With Gorsuch and Precedent
“The Democrats questioning Neil Gorsuch wanted it both ways. Defend our favored precedents, but understand we are going to drag you through the mud when you choose precedent over deciding to our favor. . . .
“To his credit, Justice Gorsuch repeatedly give his allegiance to the doctrine of stare decisis while not endorsing it as inviolate. But perhaps he gave them his own shot across the bow. Perhaps Sen. Durbin will come to regret this particular line of questioning. . . .
“After two days of public hearings, conservatives can be exhilarated in his ascension to SCOTUS. He will indeed serve America faithfully.’”
5. On Yahoo News, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) tells Katie Couric that his party leadership would be making a mistake by filibustering Judge Gorsuch.
Sen. Manchin: I’m Open to Voting for Gorsuch
“Manchin, a conservative Democrat and key vote, told Yahoo Global News Anchor Katie Couric that Senate decorum needs to be preserved and that it started to fall apart in 2013 when then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid instituted the so-called nuclear option.
“‘That’s not what the founding fathers decided for this body. This body’s a very unique body, a very deliberate body, supposed to be the teapot cooling the tea off,’ Manchin said.
“Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., announced that they would not merely oppose Gorsuch but would back a filibuster to block him. Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Bob Casey, D-Pa., have said that they plan to oppose his confirmation.
“But for Manchin, who said he’s ‘not a big filibuster guy to begin with,’ Gorsuch should get an up-or-down vote unless a lawmakers has an actual, strong concern about him.
“‘How do you preserve the Senate? How do you preserve the input that the minority should have? Because what goes around comes around,” he said. . .
“I don’t expect, as a Democrat, that he’s going to appease a lot of Democrats because of his philosophical beliefs. But guess what? The Democrats, we didn’t win the presidential election so you don’t expect to a get a center-left [judge]. . . .
“Couric suggested that ‘given that parameter,’ it sounded like Manchin plans to vote ‘yes’ on Gorsuch.
“‘Let’s just say I’m a very open-minded person,’ he replied.”
6. The Pennsylvania GOP released a statement condemning Senator Bob Casey for announcing that he will opposed Judge Gorsuch’s nomination.
Pennsylvania GOP: Senator Casey is Resisting the Will of PA Voters
“Senator Casey has again aligned himself with the far left. In choosing to oppose Judge Neil Gorsuch’s Supreme Court nomination, Bob Casey is directly disrespecting the will of Pennsylvania voters. These voters gave President Trump the chance to nominate Judge Gorsuch — a mainstream conservative who American Bar Association unanimously gave its highest rating of ‘well-qualified.’
“More concerning, Bob Casey has not stated whether or not he will join the Senate Democrats’ filibuster attempt to deny Judge Gorsuch an up or down vote by the entire Senate. This obstructionist approach to governing will not forgotten by Pennsylvania voters when they go to the polls in 2018.”
