Skip to content

Donald Trump supports ending the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

January 26, 2017

 I still remember Harry Reid and the Democrats saying that Republicans should thank them for ending the filibuster on lower court nominees and some cabinet appointees but somehow I do not think they are laughing any more now that Donald Trump is the President and the Republicans have a majority in both the House and the Senate.

  Now the Democrats might really be regretting their decision with the news that Donald Trump supports ending the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees, here is more:

President Donald Trump and some Senate Republicans are now openly threatening to kill the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees — a pronouncement sure to inflame a brewing battle with Democrats over Trump’s choice to replace the late Antonin Scalia.

Trump said Thursday that he would encourage Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to deploy the “nuclear option” — changing Senate rules on a majority vote — if Democrats block his Supreme Court pick. The president’s stance could amplify pressure on McConnell — a Senate institutionalist who is reluctant to further erode the chamber’s supermajority rules — to barrel through Democratic resistance by any means necessary.

  While it is unclear if Mitch McConnell will go along with this it is gaining support with some Republicans:

“I would have to say if they knuckle down on it and and do a straight party-line [vote], I think that the filibuster rule is possibly in danger as far as Supreme Court judges are concerned,”said Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho). “We are going to fill that Supreme Court seat period.”

  On a side note: Did you notice how Politico is calling this the “nuclear option?” It was called the “nuclear option” when the Republicans threatened to do this when George W Bush was President but the term was changed to the “Constitutional option” when Barack Obama was President. Now it is the “nuclear option” again…

  The irony here is threefold: Democrats are now upset about this possibility when they supported Harry Reid for ending the filibuster in 2013, while the Republicans who opposed Harry Reid’s decision are now embracing the so-called “nuclear option.” It is also ironic Republicans are complaining about the Democrats trying to block Donald Trump’s soon to be named choice after they blocked Barack Obama’s nominee. It is all a game of chess to them, none of them really care about anything other than giving themselves more power when they are in the majority.

  And I guess a fourth irony would be this is one of the main reasons Donald Trump won the election in the first place…

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

12 Comments leave one →
  1. January 26, 2017 10:24 pm

    A bitter taste remains on how they rammed Obamacare through on Christmas Eve with some sort of machination. Turkey neck ought to get over his thing and bring it on. After all, Trump gave his little lady a nice cabinet position.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. petermac3 permalink
    January 27, 2017 8:12 am

    While it is true irony that the rep’s are looking to end the very device they used to stop Cairbama’s SCOTUS nomination following the murder of Justice Scalia there is a glaring diffence. Zero’s pick was another unqualified left wing rubber stamp nominee in the mode of the other two women whose main qualification was their ethnicity not unlike his naming that white hating racist negro militant feminist attorney general. Conversely conservative judges have been known to vote against their conservative principles as in the case of that rat fink John Roberts jumping ship on the Obamacare vote. The good news is that two of the leftist old bags on the current court are code to assuming room temperature in the not too distant future.

    Liked by 1 person

    • January 27, 2017 10:37 am

      A strict Constitutionalist may have reached the same conclusion as Justice Roberts. The Constitution states there are three coequal branches. The courts are not supposed to be involved in writing or shaping legislation. This is something the courts seem to forget. The ACA was a bad piece of legislation, but it was approved by the legislative branch. According to a strict constitualist the court’s role is not to interfere in the legislative branch. The constitution would have had to have a provision prohibiting health care in order for the court to strike the law.

      Liked by 1 person

      • January 27, 2017 7:28 pm

        That is true however Roberts did redefine the fee for not having insurance as a tax in order to call it constitutional.


    • January 27, 2017 7:27 pm

      There is no doubt in my mind Obama had the goods on Roberts Peter.


  3. January 27, 2017 10:23 am

    I read this short opinion piece, Liberals’N’Lawsuits National Review 2005 by one of the Trumps supposed SC candidates, Neil Gorsuch Liberals’N’Lawsuits National Review 2005

    Gorsch says that there is too much reliance on litigation is bad for the courts and the Democrats. The Democrats have been using the courts to enforce their social agenda. This in turn has led to a contentious nomination process. Recently both justices Sontamayor and Roberts have spoken about how the nomination process is too focused on theoretical future rulings by a justice. The voting process should focus on the judicial opinions already written by the person being nominated. The whole idea of applying affirmative selection there must be a black, Jew, women, Latino, LGBT? to the SC is ridiculous. The whole process needs to be reigned in. Mitch and Chuck need to work out the ground rules before hand. The Dem. witch hunt needs to be nipped in the bud.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. January 27, 2017 12:34 pm

    When all they (the den*s and Rinos) have put in place for evil, may it all come around and bit them – hard!
    OT, but relates with their thinking:

    Liked by 1 person

  5. lou222 permalink
    January 31, 2017 3:25 pm

    I think that the Democrats are regretting alot of what they did…it is payback time.



  1. Donald Trump supports ending the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees | Brittius

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: