The evil is in the detail and understanding all of the history leading up to this. It all started in 1987 with the Democrats as the aggressors and throwing precedence to the wind. And now here we are.
Mitch McConnell’s Finest Hour
He holds the GOP together against a Gorsuch filibuster.
April 6, 2017 7:31 p.m. ET
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell gives a thumbs up after the Senate invoked the ''nuclear option'' which allows for a majority vote to confirm a Supreme Court justice nominee, April 6. Photo: Congressional Quarterly/Newscom/Zuma Press
The high drama of Thursday’s Senate vote to end filibusters of Supreme Court nominees was preceded by the low comedy of Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s floor speech, which ended with this fantastic reverie: “Today we moved irrevocably from the Founders’ principles of bipartisanship and moderation.” The Founders’ bipartisanship? Someone send the Senator a ticket to “Hamilton.”
The word “filibuster” exists nowhere in the Constitution. Since it first appeared in the Senate in 1837, it has been bent and revised numerous times until it fell into the hands of its undertaker—Senator Harry Reid.
Mr. Reid decided as Majority Leader in 2013 to kill filibusters for government appointees and appeals-court nominees. After that decision, the only relevant question was whether Mitch McConnell or Mr. Schumer would get the first chance to nuke the filibuster for the High Court. That choice was made in 2016 by the voters. The Republicans won. Judge Neil Gorsuch is now headed to the Supreme Court on a majority vote Friday in the Senate.
Democrats are trying to cover up this embarrassing loss with fig leafs, such as the idea that the filibuster is a sacred totem or that Mr. McConnell grievously sinned by withholding a vote on Merrick Garland in the final year of Barack Obama’s Presidency. The Garland nomination was described widely at the time as a maneuver to put Senate Republicans in a box. The Democrats bet that Republicans would wave through Mr. Garland to avoid President Hillary Clinton appointing someone to the left of Sonia Sotomayor.
It must have been a shock when Mr. McConnell took that bet and waited for the results of the 2016 election to decide the future direction of the Supreme Court. He won. Mr. McConnell deserves great credit both for holding his ground then and for holding his caucus together on breaking the filibuster Thursday in the face of a cynical Democratic narrative about their “stolen” Supreme Court seat.
Mr. Schumer is right on one score—that the politicizing of Supreme Court nominees goes back a long way. We recall the exact moment: the 1987 nomination of Robert Bork. Like Judge Gorsuch, Bork’s legal qualifications were unimpeachable. So the Democratic left created the then-novel strategy of taking down Bork on politics alone. This week’s episode upholds the principle that the Senate should be able to exercise its “advice and consent” role with a majority vote—in elections and the Senate.
Appeared in the Apr. 07, 2017, print edition.
Mitch McConnell’s Finest Hour
He holds the GOP together against a Gorsuch filibuster.
April 6, 2017 7:31 p.m. ET
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell gives a thumbs up after the Senate invoked the ''nuclear option'' which allows for a majority vote to confirm a Supreme Court justice nominee, April 6. Photo: Congressional Quarterly/Newscom/Zuma Press
The high drama of Thursday’s Senate vote to end filibusters of Supreme Court nominees was preceded by the low comedy of Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s floor speech, which ended with this fantastic reverie: “Today we moved irrevocably from the Founders’ principles of bipartisanship and moderation.” The Founders’ bipartisanship? Someone send the Senator a ticket to “Hamilton.”
The word “filibuster” exists nowhere in the Constitution. Since it first appeared in the Senate in 1837, it has been bent and revised numerous times until it fell into the hands of its undertaker—Senator Harry Reid.
Mr. Reid decided as Majority Leader in 2013 to kill filibusters for government appointees and appeals-court nominees. After that decision, the only relevant question was whether Mitch McConnell or Mr. Schumer would get the first chance to nuke the filibuster for the High Court. That choice was made in 2016 by the voters. The Republicans won. Judge Neil Gorsuch is now headed to the Supreme Court on a majority vote Friday in the Senate.
Democrats are trying to cover up this embarrassing loss with fig leafs, such as the idea that the filibuster is a sacred totem or that Mr. McConnell grievously sinned by withholding a vote on Merrick Garland in the final year of Barack Obama’s Presidency. The Garland nomination was described widely at the time as a maneuver to put Senate Republicans in a box. The Democrats bet that Republicans would wave through Mr. Garland to avoid President Hillary Clinton appointing someone to the left of Sonia Sotomayor.
It must have been a shock when Mr. McConnell took that bet and waited for the results of the 2016 election to decide the future direction of the Supreme Court. He won. Mr. McConnell deserves great credit both for holding his ground then and for holding his caucus together on breaking the filibuster Thursday in the face of a cynical Democratic narrative about their “stolen” Supreme Court seat.
Mr. Schumer is right on one score—that the politicizing of Supreme Court nominees goes back a long way. We recall the exact moment: the 1987 nomination of Robert Bork. Like Judge Gorsuch, Bork’s legal qualifications were unimpeachable. So the Democratic left created the then-novel strategy of taking down Bork on politics alone. This week’s episode upholds the principle that the Senate should be able to exercise its “advice and consent” role with a majority vote—in elections and the Senate.
Appeared in the Apr. 07, 2017, print edition.
