Skip to comments.Chuck Todd Elicits the Real Reason Schumer Opposes the Gorsuch Nomination
Posted on 04/02/2017 6:10:55 PM PDT by jazusamo
On Sunday's Meet the Press, Chuck Todd grilled both Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer about Neil Gorsuch's confirmation hearing, the nuclear option, and filibustering. In the course of the conversation, Schumer's real motivation for wanting to stick to the 60-vote rule was revealed.
Back on February 1st, Schumer insisted he merely wanted a fair process:
"We Democrats will insist on a rigorous but fair process....It was a bar met by each of [former President] Obamas nominations. Each received 60 votes. And most importantly, its the right thing to do.
On February 7, he wrote that opposing a "nuclear option" is part of doing his job for the American people:
This is not unfair or obstructionistthis is the Senate doing its job by critically evaluating a nominee who will have immense impact on the lives of Americans.
By the time of his February 21st appearance on The View, he said he now had concerns about Gorsuch because he hadn't been "forthcoming" in his private meetings with senators, and that his refusal to opine on the constitutionality of President Trump's executive orders (which could come before the Supreme Court) left him with an "eerie feeling."
All along, there was a simple reason for Chuck's obstruction - it's just payback for the refusal of McConnell to allow an up or down vote on Obama's appointee, Merrick Garland, and an attempt to force President Trump to consult the Democrats and name an "acceptable" appointee.
His response came after a number of questions from Chuck Todd:
But there is no rule that says that it has to be 60 votes. There's no part of advice and consent that says there has to be 60 votes. And in fact, there are currently two members of this Supreme Court right now that did not get 60 votes, Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas.
Why not give Neil Gorsuch an up or down vote, Senator Schumer?
But why should Senator McConnell work with you guys on this, when you changed the rules first when you decided to do this?
Then why did you change the rules in the first place?
Here we go (emphasis added)...
Our nominee was Merrick Garland. Mitch McConnell broke 230 years of precedent and didn't call him up for a vote. It wasn't in the middle of an election campaign, it was March. Second, then now it looks like we have the votes to prevent Gorsuch from getting on. Now, that doesn't mean you have to change the rules. Each side didn't get their nominee. Let's sit down and come together. Our Republican friends are acting like, you know, they're a cat on the top of a tree and they have to jump off with all the damage that entails. Come back off the tree, sit down, and work with us and we will produce a mainstream nominee.
We all know what "mainstream nominee" means. It means one who agrees with the Schumer/Pelosi world view. No thanks, Senator.
The ‘rats have a peculiar definition of “mainstream” — it requires slavish devotion to libtard propaganda.
I almost feel bad for this moron. He has to ensure that donations keep flowing into the DNC and its political campaign coffers, even if it means taking indefensible positions where he’s sure to come out on the losing end anyway.
Chuckie never acknowledges that the “ Biden rule” is what sunk Garlands nomination
Another DEMOCRAT rule that blew up,in their smug faces
Right on! The Rats are selective in who their rules apply to.
The Democrats openly said in the final years of the last two Republican Presidents that they should not be allowed to fill any vacancies on the Court...but now pretend that Scalia's seat was stolen from Obama because McConnell would not allow a vote last year. They are counting on most people not remembering the past. Garland would have represented a significant shift to the left (5 hard-line leftists on the Court) whereas Gorsuch is merely preserving the previous balance (and perhaps not as firmly as Scalia would have).
Yes, Chuckie knows he’s fighting a losing battle on this and Gorsuch will be confirmed but he can’t resist catering to the liberals because he’s getting a lot of time in front of the cameras.
You are correct. Democrats have gotten away with this sort of “Heads we win, tails you lose” rules for 60 years.
Nope. Schumer is a liar; like we didn’t already know that. Nope. He’s still pissed ‘cause Garland was never brought up for a vote based on rules his party made in the 90’s.
It wasn't in March. By the time all the "get acquainted" meetings with the Senators and committee hearings were finished ( and the Senate was back in session from their various breaks ), it would have been July before it came to a vote. That would have put it in the middle of the election.
>>.It was a bar met by each of [former President] Obamas nominations. Each received 60 votes.<<
And there you have it!
We play fair and approve qualified but ideologically devoted leftists like Kagan and Sotomayor and the dems, instead of following our example and playing by the agreed upon rules, they use our honesty against us!
We are such suckers. It’s sometimes embarrassing even being on this team.
When in the heck are we ever going to start to fight? I mean really, really fight?
Schumer wants Trump to pull Gorisch and put up Garland for an up or down vote.
Again. These a$$hats never expected to lose the election. Now that the tables are turned, we must go back to “fairness”. KMA all you traitorous RATS!!
Schumer got out of college and immediately ran for office - he won. That pr!ck has NEVER had a job working under the laws his fellow idiots in Congress have passed. He is a man of ZERO personal real world experience but he has enormously unearned but outsized influence.
Setting a trap maybe: Chuck Schumer playing politics by laying a trap for President Trump. Schumer could just be releasing enough Dems to carry cloture, securing a future “precedent” for no nuke option.
Oh dear, please tell me the Republicans aren’t going to fall for this again.
Let’s all work together? That’s code for give us everything we want and then some.
I don’t care what a judge’s personal beliefs are. As long as he rules according to the LAW. Not feelings. Not preferred outcome. Just the law.
I’d still like to know more about how Justice Scalia died which created the opening for the rats to name someone.
——Id still like to know more about how Justice Scalia died which created the opening for the rats to name someone.-——
Scalia was an older obese man with hypertension, Type 2 Diabetes, smoked, not very active.
You think Obama or someone murdered him when half the SCOTUS members could kneel over any moment....
He was just the first to go...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.