Curse of Harry Reid will obstruct Feinstein’s obstruction on Gorsuch for SCOTUS

Schumber

In 2007 when George W. Bush’s presidency approached its final months, Democrat senator Schumer sang a different tune on nominations to SCOTUS. (Video snip/Hugh Hewitt on YouTube)

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has emerged as a political warrior in opposing Supreme Court justice nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch. Feinstein and her fellow Democrats hope to obstruct Gorsuch’s confirmation.

In the end the curse of Harry Reid, Democrat and former Senate majority leader from Nevada, will obstruct Feinstein and her fellow political kin’s attempts. Fact is, Reid and the former president laid groundwork for arranging rules to their liking.

Members of both dominant parties know how to play to cameras and hearings have been public. Some of those same hearings from the past set a precedent Feinstein and other Dems can’t hide from. No one has been more obstructing, for example, than Chuck Schumer, (D) senator from New York. In 2007, more than a year ahead of the presidential election, Schumer had a different take than he has now:

“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances.”

Schumer and his ilk are having a hard time getting over Republicans’ refusal to hold hearings on former president Barack Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland. Obama nominated Garland in mid-March, 2016 ahead of that year’s presidential election.

What Democrats won’t admit is they would have done the same thing ahead of a presidential election. What Republicans should now admit is that Dems play hardball while Republicans often decide to reach across the iconic aisle.

Nine Republicans voted to confirm a nominee I personally believe should never have been placed on the court—Sonia Sotomayor.

Five Republicans voted to confirm Elena Kagan, an individual whose partisanship was, in my opinion, evident long before and during proceedings on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. How many Dems will buck their leadership and vote for Gorsuch whose qualifications are well established?

PayPal contributions link adRepublicans don’t need a lot of Dem support. After all, it was former Senate majority leader Harry Reid who nuked the rules for confirmations and established the so-called “nuclear option.” 

Current minority leader Chuck Schumer (NY) formerly took a dim view (2007) of motions such as Obama’s nomination of Garland:

“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances.”

Radio host Hugh Hewitt recounted Democrats’ self-contradictions on nominations, such as Schumer’s 2007 statement and something else too. In the past 80 years, a SCOTUS nominee has not been nominated and confirmed in the last year of a presidency.

There is no valid reason to deny Gorsuch the confirmation.

The Supreme Court wasn’t a high profile issue for many Americans in the last election, but political junkies realized the importance of the election’s outcome after Justice Antonin Scalia passed away unexpectedly in mid-February, 2016. Democrats’ allies in media realized how important it was.

The Federalist analyzed the matter in December, 2016, when the editor of a highly influential leftist website advocated Democrats get Garland confirmed by use of a version of the tactic Democrats now profess to disdain—Harry Reid’s nuclear option.

The curse of Harry Reid ensures Gorsuch will serve on the Supreme Court, a legacy Reid most certainly never intended to bequeath to the GOP.

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/April 3, 2017)

 

 

About Kay Day

Kay B. Day is a freelance writer who has published in national and international magazines and websites. The author of 3 books, her work is anthologized in textbooks and collections. She has won awards for poetry, nonfiction and fiction. Day is a member of the American Society of Journalists and Authors and the Authors Guild.
This entry was posted in 2016, Congress, US Supreme Court and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Sound off!