Even NBC Admits Dems ‘Painted Themselves in a Corner’ With ‘Silly’ Gorsuch Fight

Newsbusters.org ^ | April 3, 2017 | Kyle Drennen

[Kaslin]

While NBC News is usually in lock step with the agenda and talking points of the Democratic Party, on Monday, even the liberal analysts on the Today show were forced to acknowledge that Senate Democrats had “painted themselves in a corner” with their partisan push to filibuster Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.

Leading off a discussion on the topic with MSNBC chief legal correspondent Ari Melber and NBC political analyst Nicolle Wallace, co-host Savannah Guthrie asked: “What are the stakes here?” Melber replied: “The stakes are high. The Republicans are willing to do everything they need to do, including potentially amend the rules, which Democrats had originally done....Now Democrats have painted themselves in a corner making this about the man, not the seat. And they look on the on precipice of losing.”  

Even NBC Admits Dems ‘Painted Themselves in a Corner’ With ‘Silly’ Gorsuch Fight

Fellow co-host Matt Lauer seemed to hope that Republicans would take some political damage if they “go nuclear...and they require only a simple majority vote by changing the rules.” He pressed Wallace: “In real world, how is this going to play out and which party has more to lose in this?”

Wallace only confirmed that Democrats were the ones in trouble:

I think Democrats are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in the way they're playing this. I think to their base, they may be deeply satisfied by taking a hide for the hide of Garland, who wasn't confirmed. But I think that people going about their lives, that may have glanced at the confirmation hearings, saw in Neil Gorsuch someone very elegant and very qualified. And while they may disagree on ideology, a Republican president replacing a conservative judge with another conservative doesn’t shift the balance of the Court. I think it was a silly fight for Democrats to pick.

Of course Lauer should already know that given a recent NBC News poll found that 54% of Americans oppose a filibuster of Gorsuch. A statistic that the morning show refused to cover.

Despite the analysis being unfavorable to Democrats, at the top of the program, Lauer sensationally proclaimed: “Not So Fast. Democrats vowing to block President Trump's pick for the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch....Will Republicans be forced to use the so-called nuclear option?”

Correspondent Peter Alexander followed with a report that touted “a stalemate over the Supreme Court” and “Democrats still angry about Republicans’ refusal to give President Obama’s pick, Merrick Garland, a hearing.”

Perhaps the commentary from Melber and Wallace was not what the Today hosts were expecting.

Here is a transcript of the April 3 exchange:

7:10 AM ET

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Let us bring in Nicolle Wallace and MSNBC’s chief legal correspondent Ari Melber. Guys, good morning.

NICOLLE WALLACE: Good morning.

ARI MELBER: Good morning.

GUTHRIE: A lot to chew over. Let's start with the Supreme Court. This is an incredibly consequential week for the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch. And to hear Republican Leader Mitch McConnell tell it, he’s going to get confirmed, the issue is what has to happen to get it done.  What are the stakes here?

MELBER: The stakes are high. The Republicans are willing to do everything they need to do, including potentially amend the rules, which Democrats had originally done. Bottom line, Republicans made the original fight under the Obama era about the seat, not the man, they won. Now Democrats have painted themselves in a corner making this about the man, not the seat. And they look on the on precipice of losing.

MATT LAUER: He says Democrats have painted themselves in a corner. So if the Republicans go nuclear, which is the term everybody’s using, and they require only a simple majority vote by changing the rules, take me down the road. In real world, how is this going to play out and which party has more to lose in this?

WALLACE: I think Democrats are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in the way they're playing this. I think to their base, they may be deeply satisfied by taking a hide for the hide of Garland, who wasn't confirmed. But I think that people going about their lives, that may have glanced at the confirmation hearings, saw in Neil Gorsuch someone very elegant and very qualified. And while they may disagree on ideology, a Republican president replacing a conservative judge with another conservative doesn’t shift the balance of the Court. I think it was a silly fight for Democrats to pick.

(...)

[Col Frank Slade]

” What are the stakes here” ?

Bimbo

[SaxxonWoods]

We win no matter which way they go.

Popcorn...

[timestax]

bttt

[Blood of Tyrants]

Go ahead and nuke the filibuster. It will make replacing Ginsberg with an originialist that much easier.

[arrogantsob]

When is the media going to start reporting actual news?

[Political Junkie Too]

The stakes are that McConnell folds and accepts a Democrat promise to not filibuster now in exchange for a Republican promise to not go nuclear next time.

McConnell will think he saved a cherished Senate tradition, when he is really sabotaging Republican control of the Supreme Court.

-PJ

[pa_dweller]

Probably never. Shows like that are just parodies of ‘The View’ with lipstick.

[Steely Tom]

Before they called it "silly," they were calling it "corruption" and "treason" and "stealing the election" and "undermining Democracy."

Now, they get to say "oh, we were being silly."

[Alberta's Child]

Do you really think McConnell blocked the Merrick Garland nomination just to do that? LOL.

[Enchante]

Yes, I am hoping we get to “go nuclear” now and do away with the filibuster. Then the upcoming SCOTUS battles will be much easier. Which is why the ‘rats are idiots to pick this fight now, although the outcome will not be any different if they wait ‘till next time.

p.s. The Republicans have NO NEED for the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees by any future Democrap POTUS, because they will never use it!! So getting rid of the filibuster is a 100% winning move for the Republicans. They risk nothing.

[Enchante]

Well with the fencepost turtle McConnell, it’s certainly possible.

But let’s hope he wouldn’t be so spineless and stooopid as that....

[Rashputin]

". . . doesn’t shift the balance of the Court."

There's on damn "balance" on the USSC, there's globalist, leftist, Haaaavard grads taking this country further and further away from the Constitution every chance they get by "discovering implied" rights.

Until we have a President that will put nothing but original intent judges on the court so there's at least a six to three majority who laws in light of the Constitution the same way Justice Thomas does our only chance is for Congress to start making laws that explicitly state said law is not within the jurisdiction of the USSC.

What are the odds of Congress growing a pair vs. the odds of getting a President who has a pair?

[Political Junkie Too]

Do you really think McConnell blocked the Merrick Garland nomination just to do that?

Yes.

1. Reid was still the minority leader when McConnell blocked Garland, not Schumer. Reid had a long history of reneging on promises with McConnell.

2. Garland would have been a flip of the court, Left for Right. McConnell HAD to do that with an election coming up.

3. Gorsuch is not a flip of the court, so McConnell could very well trade away the future flip to keep the Court status quo now (and in the future), and keep the so-called traditions of the Senate intact.

4. McConnell is probably betting that the next SCOTUS nomination will come after the 2018 mid-term election, where the make-up of the Senate will be different because Democrats have to defend 12 seats in Republican-won states. Therefore, he's only focused on this confirmation now, thinking that a promise in the future will become mooted by events.

-PJ

[loveliberty2]

By this action, and others equally repugnant to freedom lovers, future generations may be able to mark the persons and moment when the Constitution and its supremacy as the anchor for liberty were rejected, and by whom.

Thank you, Democrats, for your being willing to be so clearly identified as rejecting a person whose record and promises indicated a fidelity to that Constitution's protections, as intended by its framers and those who ratified it.

[jjotto]

There is no place to get ‘original intent’ judges in the tradition of America’s first 150 or more years.

Most Originalists really are not.

[Rashputin]

We could do a Hell of a lot worse than guys like Thomas and if that’s the best we can do it’s orders of magnitude better than anything we’ve had in a long, long, time.

[jjotto]

Thomas is generally very quiet because he understands how rare his underlying judicial philosophy is.

[Alberta's Child]

If McConnell lets Schumer walk all over him, the Republicans would lose control of the Senate in 2018 even if their candidates ran every race unopposed. These Washington insiders aren't stupid. They know full well that Trump was elected because people are tired of a government that can't even get simple sh!t done.

Something else to consider is that a lot of business and industry groups are pushing hard to get Gorsuch approved. These are the core of the GOPe's financial supporters.

[oldbrowser]

The filibuster is a reflection on the Democrats, not on Gorsuch.