NRL News

Democrats begin “scorched earth” attack by boycotting hearings for Price and Mnuchin

by | Jan 31, 2017

By Dave Andrusko

Rep. Tom Price

Rep. Tom Price

To quote the immortal actress Betty Davis, “Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a bumpy night.”

Borrowing from the Washington Post, I’m alluding not only to what may well be pro-abortion Senate Democrats’ “scorched earth” approach to whomever President Donald Trump announces tonight to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, but also to the belligerent actions of Senate Democrats today in boycotting confirmation hearings for HHS Secretary Rep. Tom Price and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.

On a related note, a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing went so long today that a vote on Attorney General nominee Sen. Jeff Sessions will not be held until Wednesday (barring further grandstanding).

The headline to today’s editorial reads “Democrats shouldn’t go scorched-earth on Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.” I wonder if the Washington Post had a heads-up on what Senate Democrats planned to do/are planning to do.

The editorial takes the approach that Democrats have every reason to torpedo President Trump’s replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia, but should not.

Our objection is rooted, rather, in our belief that the Supreme Court confirmation process needs to be protected from partisan politics to the greatest extent possible and that a scorched-earth Democratic response to any nominee, regardless of the individual merits, would simply deepen that harmful politicization. Yes, Mr. Trump seeks to fill the court’s vacancy to his liking, on the basis of a thin electoral college-only victory. Still, however narrow, his victory was legitimate and he does have the clear constitutional prerogative to make the choice.

Senator Jeff Sessions

Senator Jeff Sessions

Without rehashing the past, just ask yourself who began the “harmful politicization” of the Supreme Court confirmation process? Democrats when they successfully undermined the nomination of Judge Robert Bork and later unsuccessfully attempted what now-Justice Clarence Thomas perfectly described as a “high-tech lynching” of his nomination.

More recently why are nominees that Democrats put up–Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan come to mind–treated with respect by the Senate Judiciary Committee while nominees chosen by Republican presidents fair game for any attack, attacks which know no bounds?

And, at the risk of stating the obvious, had pro-abortion Hillary Clinton won “how narrow[ly],” would the Post be talking about her “thin electoral college-only victory”? Of course not, nor would the editorial page feel the need to assure us that her victory was “legitimate.”

The Post, ideologically, is in lock-step with Democrats. That’s why when they counsel against a filibuster of Justice Scalia’s replacement, it is in on the basis that discretion is the better part of valor.

[P]rovoking Republicans to resort to the filibuster-abolishing “nuclear option” would leave Democrats disarmed of that weapon against a second Trump pick should another vacancy arise during his presidency.

So, keep your power dry, fellow Democrats, you might have a second opportunity.

It’ll be very interesting to see what pro-abortion Senate Democrats decide. After all they fervently believe in abortion and are deeply beholden to the Abortion Lobby for money and womanpower.

Egged on by NARAL and Planned Parenthood, resisting the chance to demagogue President Trump’s nominee up to and including a filibuster might be a temptation too hard to resist.

Categories: Politics