Posted on 04/03/2017 12:11:09 PM PDT by 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.
(...)
Thomas is generally very quiet because he once described oral arguments as a waste of time for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Anyone with any common sense knows that it would be stupid to filibuster Gorsuch. He will be confirmed regardless and it would result in the filibuster not being available when President Trump gets an opportunity to replace one of the Liberal Justices. Unfortunately for the Senate Democrats, they have Schmuckie Chuckie as their leader.
I also have an outlandish theory that Trump is perfectly willing to put someone like an unemployed steel worker with no legal credentials on the U.S. Supreme Court in a recess appointment if Gorsuch is blocked. It would be perfectly in character with Trump. If D.C. swamp creatures want to make a mockery of our national institutions, then at least put someone on the Court who is an honest American and could use the money.
Yep.
If the Court ever returns to sanity, Thomas’ opinions will be basic texts.
-PJ
Good Post. Thanks
Actually no need to if Ginsburg goes next—he can nominate practically anyone who will be to the right of her.
Sotomayor may be to the right of Ginsberg, but she still votes lock step with her. And we sure as hell don’t need that or another Kennedy.
While that may be true, I would be greatly disappointed if Trump nominated someone only slightly to the right of Ginsburg.
I heartily agree with those who believe that NOW, with Gorsuch as the nominee, is the best time to kill the filibuster. It will make the process much easier later when the fact that there is more at stake for the liberals will make them absolutely nuts. And yes, I believe it is possible for them to become even more nuts than they are now.
If I were to be a devil's advocate against my own idea, I'd suggest that a decent Schumer play would be to get an Associate Justice to announce stepping down in early 2018 pending their replacement.
Once the SCOTUS seat comes into play, Schumer would then demand that Trump not fill the seat until after the 2018 mid-term election, to "let the people decide," and then campaign to protect the 12 Senate seats as a mandate on the Court.
We all know that it's different than in a presidential election year, because Trump gets to nominate anyway, no matter how the mid-term election goes. However, Schumer is in it for the optics and pressure, so he doesn't care about hypocrisy. Schumer would still create a crisis on the Court to rally the Democrat voter base to turn out to protect the Senate Democrats, and possibly throw out Senate Republicans too, to retake control in Trump's second two years.
-PJ
Dems are picking every fight possible, and are dialing up every one to 11.
Why?
I suspect they are acting out of a desperate need to derail Pizzagate and/or various national security investigations before they get arrested.
I like the nuclear option, because we can use it again in the next 2-4 Justices.
The dirty ‘Rat Shumer won’t need anyone to step down. My hunch is Ruth Buzzie Ginsburg won’t last that much longer. That is when you will REALLY see the leftist heads explode. We will need the nuclear option at that point. If the Repubs actually have the guts to use it before the election it should demoralize the ‘rats even more. WINNING!
If Schumer keeps the filibuster, then the only way for Gorsuch to be seated is for McConnell to go nuclear now or make a deal over the next seat.
That presumes that 1) McConnell trades it away now by promising to not use it next time, and 2) McConnell breaks his promise to Schumer and does go nuclear next time.
What would Republicans do if McConnell doesn't go nuclear now, makes a deal with Schumer before Friday, and then vows to keep his word when the next seat opens up?
-PJ
I’ve been saying all along that I hope the dems filibuster Gorsuch so McConnell has a good reason to change the rules to a 51 majority. It’s obvious to anyone with a brain Gorsuch is a straight shooter and will look at the evidence and the law and rule accordingly and not just with “feelings”. In other words do what the SC is supposed to do. Making law is the business of the legislative branch, not the justice branch and not the executive branch without going through the legislative branch.
Our Constitution is clear on this issue.
By forcing the nuclear option on Gorsuch the precedent will have been set so it will be no big deal to use it when Senator Cruz or someone like him is nominated for the next opening or two. Let’s just hope we keep a majority in the Senate for the next 4-8 years so we can keep a fair Supreme Court and not an activist one.
Oral arguments are a waste of time. Read the transcripts of the questions and comments from the liberals on the court and be amazed at how breathtakingly stupid these people truly are.
That's my prayer-of-the-week - Schumer goes through with the filibuster, the Republicans grow a pair and nuke him. Like anything else, one the deed it done, as you say, the following ones get easier.
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.