Severino, Strassel: Schumer is Breaking Senate Tradition
March 24, 2017
To keep up with conservative & legal experts on Twitter follow:
For the latest on Judge Gorsuch’s nomination: www.confirmgorsuch.com
1. Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network, argues that Chuck Schumer is no friend of Senate tradition.
Carrie Severino: Gridlock Chuck’s Political Game Flies in Face of Senate History
“Gridlock Chuck has made it clear time and time again that he is willing to destroy every norm and tradition in the Senate for the sake of turning our federal courts into rubber stamps for a left-wing political agenda. Now he is at it again, by threatening to make Judge Gorsuch the first Supreme Court nominee in U.S. history with majority support to fail because of a filibuster. Republicans appear poised to restore the tradition of the Senate by invoking the constitutional option and voting to confirm Judge Gorsuch with a bare majority, and I look forward to standing with them if it comes to that.”
2. In the Wall Street Journal, Kim Strassel explains how Chuck Schumer is breaking from centuries of Senate tradition.
Strassel: Chuck Schumer Breaks the Senate
“Never in U.S. history have we had a successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. In 1968 a bipartisan group of senators filibustered the proposed elevation of Justice Abe Fortas to chief justice, because he was a crook. The left edged nearer the precipice in 2006 with the attempted filibuster of Samuel Alito, but only 25 Democrats joined.
“Since then, progressives have lost any fear of the electoral consequences of playing abject politics with the high court. The American Bar Association unanimously awarded Judge Gorsuch its highest possible rating. He floated through this week’s confirmation hearings. Liberal and conservative colleagues alike have praised him to the stars. Yet not a single Democrat—not even vulnerable moderates such as West Virginia’s Joe Manchin or North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp—has publicly supported him. Before this week’s drama had even ended, Democratic senators were queuing to oppose him….
“If Mr. Manchin and fellow Democrats want to retain the filibuster for future, justified use, that’s simple. All they need do is refrain from abusing that power against a highly intelligent, perfectly qualified nominee. This is Mr. Schumer’s mess. Either his party can clean it up, or Republicans will do it.”
3. The Denver Post urges Colorado Senator Michael Bennet to resist his fellow Democrats’ filibuster and vote to confirm Judge Gorsuch.
Denver Post: Colorado’s senior senator needs to walk away from petty politics
“[Gorsuch] possesses the fairness, independence and open-mindedness necessary to make him a marvelous addition to the Supreme Court. Missing the chance to rally behind Gorsuch — who has been roundly praised here by Democrats and Republicans alike — already diminishes Bennet. He cannot remain silent any longer.
“If Bennet wants to be known for representing Colorado, and not resting on his East Coast elitist pedigree, he should demonstrate the same kind of autonomy and courage Gorsuch already has exhibited….
“[W]e simply have been left to shake our heads in dismay at Bennet’s reticence to buck Democratic leadership opposed to this confirmation.”
4. In October, the Hill reported that Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Tim Kaine promised to break any Republican filibuster over SCOTUS nominee.
Kaine: Filibustering a Supreme Court nominee is “thwart[ing] the law.”
“Hillary Clinton’s running mate is predicting Democrats will go ‘nuclear’ if Republicans try to stonewall a potential Supreme Court nominee by Clinton.
“Tim Kaine on Friday said he believes Senate Democrats will change the chamber’s rules if they run into GOP obstruction in 2017.
“‘If these guys think guys think they are going to stonewall the filling of that vacancy, or other vacancies, then a Democratic Senate majority will say we’re not going to let you thwart the law,’ he told The Huffington Post.
“The historic move would let Supreme Court nominees bypass a current 60-vote procedural requirement and be approved by a simple majority.”
5. A Washington Post article from last month explains why Democratic rhetoric about the “60-vote standard” for Supreme Court nominees is misleading.
Kesler: Two Pinocchios for Schumer and the Democrats
“Democrats are being slippery with their language. Sixty votes is not ‘a standard’ for Supreme Court confirmations, as two of the current justices on the court did not meet that supposed standard.
“There is a separate issue of whether Republicans will have to invoke cloture to end a filibuster — and whether Gorsuch could meet the necessary 60 votes to proceed to a confirmation vote. In Supreme Court nominations, that’s a rarely used parliamentary tactic that is certainly available to Democrats to establish a threshold for confirmation. But it’s not ‘a standard.’”
