Monday will be a day of infamy! President Trump will be the prime focus when he announces the new Supreme Court pick. Three are in the running, but there is a high probability that a woman (Judge Amy Coney Barrett) will be the one. Nothing would be better than having another woman joining the liberal triumvirate – a conservative one for a change. How about that in “your face” Crying Chuck?
As you recall Schumer’s old time pal, Harry “the pugilist” Reid, was the one who rolled out the “nuclear option.”
Sen. Harry Reid, remarks on Senate floor, Nov. 21, 2013
The change eliminated the filibuster — a blockage of floor action, typically by the chamber’s minority party — for executive branch nominations as well as judicial appointments short of the Supreme Court. Under the new rule, the Senate only needs a 51-vote majority instead of a 60-vote supermajority to end a filibuster and move to a final vote on a nomination.
Schumer, in mid-2007, even suggested that because Democrats were “hoodwinked” by the confirmation testimony of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, no more nominees should be confirmed for the balance of George W. Bush’s term, even though he had 18 months left. The point was that it was the end of a presidency:
“For the rest of this President’s term and if there is another Republican elected with the same selection criteria let me say this: We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts; or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito. Given the track record of this President and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court, at least: I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee EXCEPT in extraordinary circumstances.”
Bottom line: it’s pretty clear the debate in 2016 revolved around nominations made in a presidential election year. Democrats are simply spinning a false narrative.