NY Times Suddenly Thrilled By The Use Of Filibuster Against Neil Gorsuch

NY Times Suddenly Thrilled By The Use Of Filibuster Against Neil Gorsuch

During the Obama years, when Democrats were in charge, the NY Times was very much against the GOP using the filibuster, and very much approved of using the nuclear option. Of course, that belief changed when Republicans took over the Senate, and, suddenly, filibusters by Democrats were great examples of Democracy!!!! in action and the nuclear option should never be used.

Well, now the Democrats plan on filibustering Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. It was just a little under two months ago that the NY Times was telling Democrats not to filibuster Gorsuch, because it could cause Republicans to use the nuclear option. But, now….

Editorial: A Roadblock to the Court for Neil Gorsuch

Trending: The 15 Best Conservative News Sites On The Internet

Senate Republicans had to know there would be a price for their unprecedented theft of President Barack Obama’s final Supreme Court pick last year.

On Thursday, Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, named it: Either find 60 votes to overcome a filibuster of President Trump’s extremely conservative nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, or find another, more moderate choice. (snip)

Judge Gorsuch is clearly qualified for the court, and for the most part he handled himself smoothly over 20 hours of mind-numbingly predictable hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. There’s also no question he would be a conservative vote on many of the most pressing issues facing the court, including abortion and reproductive rights, gay rights, religious liberty, gun-safety legislation, protections for workers and the environment, the flood of private money into political campaigns and more. Despite his insistence that he would approach every case with an open mind, his record strongly suggests he would rule the way Republicans would like in most, if not all, cases. Over three or four decades on the court, he would help push the law further to the right in many areas.

So, clearly qualified.

The best rationale for the filibuster, however, is the outrageous behavior of Mr. Schumer’s Republican colleagues, who refused even to consider Judge Merrick Garland, Mr. Obama’s highly qualified choice to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, in February 2016 — solely to hold the seat open for a conservative judge.

While eliminating the filibuster would pay off for Republicans salivating for Judge Gorsuch right now, they might keep in mind that one day, perhaps sooner than they expect, they will be in the minority again, and then they’ll be stuck with one rule of politics they can’t change: What goes around comes around.

So, in essence, the NY Times Editorial Board is telling Democrats to go ahead and filibuster because they’re whiny little children who didn’t get their way in the rough and tumble world of politics. Crying baby party.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

You Might Like

Leave a Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend