By Dave Andrusko
In a move that came as a surprise to utterly no one, Democrats today forced a one-week delay in a Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch. The committee will now vote on Gorsuch’s nomination to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on April 3.
Under Senate rules, any member of Judiciary Committee can ask for a nomination to be held over one week. Senators are scheduled to leave for a two-week Easter recess starting April 8.
“Before the hearing started we all knew how qualified the judge is. His resume speaks for itself,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said, according to the Associated Press. “But last week we got to see up-close how thoughtful, articulate, and humble he is. He is clearly deeply committed to being a fair and impartial judge. And he isn’t willing to compromise that independence to win votes in the Senate.”
As noted in prior posts, pro-abortion Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) has already said he will be among the Senate Democrats who will filibuster Judge Gorsuch’s nomination.
The Senate is currently controlled by Republicans, 52 to 48. Under current Senate precedents, it would require 60 votes to “invoke cloture” to end a filibuster on a Supreme Court nominee. If all Republicans, as expected, vote to confirm Judge Gorsuch, eight Democrats would have to join them in support to end a filibuster.
However, in 2013 the then-majority Democrats lowered the cloture threshold from 60 to a simple majority for all other presidential nominations, and the Republicans could now do the same thing for nominations to the Supreme Court.
Schumer’s remarks were wholly expected. In venue after venue, Schumer has made it abundantly clear there was an imaginary judicial “mainstream” which only candidates nominated by pro-abortion Democratic presidents could occupy.
After Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing concluded last week, Sen. Grassley said in a statement,
“If you’d filibuster Judge Gorsuch, it’s obvious you’d filibuster anybody.”
“It was a brilliant display before our committee. His testimony, and the testimony of those who actually know him, should create a dilemma for anybody who is desperate for a reason to vote no, because if you’re voting on qualifications and not politics, you’d vote yes.”
Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, go directly to nationalrighttolifenews.org and/or follow me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Please send your comments to email@example.com.