Pirate's Cove

Despite some attempts to pin some blame on Senate Republicans for the stalemate in the Senate over the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, the Washington Post Editorial Board ends up pinning this on Democrats

The Senate is on the brink of an historic mistake

THE STANDOFF over Judge Neil Gorsuch’s Supreme Court nomination is the latest episode in a years-long cycle of political retribution that has diminished the Senate and harmed the country. It nevertheless represents a depressing new low. Senator after senator acknowledges that the body is about to make a historic mistake, setting precedent and changing procedures in a way that will, over time, erode the quality of both the Senate and the judiciary. But few seem interested in defusing the dispute.

Democrats are preparing to filibuster a well-qualified judge, marking the first time a partisan filibuster has been mounted against a high court nominee. In response, Republicans are preparing to change the rules and eliminate the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees, ending the minority party’s ability to demand meaningful consultation on presidential appointments to any major office (since Democrats, when they were in the majority, had already abolished the filibuster for other nominations). The Senate’s 52 Republicans cannot overcome a filibuster of Mr. Gorsuch without the help of eight Democrats. But they can permanently change Senate rules by simple majority vote.

Obviously, the Democrats are using the excuse of Republicans blocking Obama’s pick, Merrick Garland. The Washington Post EB mentions this, but, forgets to mention the Biden Rule, which is about there being different standards for judicial nominees during election years.

Anger about the majority leader’s cynical power play may be clouding Democrats’ judgment, even about their own tactical interests. They have tried to paint Mr. Gorsuch as unacceptably radical, despite the fact that former Obama administration officials, the American Bar Association and many others have deemed him well-qualified to serve. Moreover, postponing the discussion over abolishing the filibuster until Mr. Trump’s next nomination, if any, would put Democrats in a stronger position and at least might pressure the president to select a more reasonable nominee next time than he otherwise might.

In other words, Democrats should be less obstructive, and stop acting like pouty children. I’m listening to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse whine about needing a court that calls balls and strikes, yet, he, like so many Democrats, voted for Obama’s far left activist Supreme Court judges. And Lindsay Graham makes a good point

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that in the case of a Democratic filibuster to Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination he was “going to vote to change the rules because I’m not going to be a part of a Senate where Democrats get their judges and a Republican can never get theirs, that’s not what it’s all about.”

Obama appointed activists Sonia Sotomayer and Elana Kagan. In both cases, Republicans allowed the final vote for their confirmation, despite knowing that Obama was looking for activist judges, per his own words during the 2008 campaign season. Republicans usually give in. Partly because that’s what the elected ones do. And it’s part of Senate tradition.

And we shouldn’t forget about Harry Reid invoking the nuclear option for lower court judges. There were few complaints from liberals and the Washington Post about that. The same WPEB is now trying to tell Republicans that what comes around goes around. True.

Likewise, what Democrats did can turn around and bite them in delicate parts.

Crossed at Right Wing News.