Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Politics Supreme Court

FLASHBACK: That Time Chuck Schumer Wanted an Up or Down Vote ‘no Matter’s Who’s in Power’

Jeff Dunetz
Written by Jeff Dunetz

This is what the game of politics is all about. Rights for me, but not for thee. When the Republicans do it, it’s bad, and when the Democrats do it, it’s good.

Whenever Democrats resort to ‘drastic measures’ like the nuclear option, it’s for the ‘good of the country.’ It’s for the children. It’s for seniors, and for the sick.

When Republicans consider resorting to similar ‘drastic measures’ – perhaps in response to stall tactics of Democrats who aren’t objecting on principle, but because they’re trying to resist Trump – all of sudden, the GOP is in favor of poisoning water and throwing grandma under the bus, or whatever analogy they come up with.

We’re seeing these same silly histrionics play out with Trump’s cabinet appointments. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that he’d be filibustering Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation, and he said that the GOP should not do what he and Harry Reid did back in 2013, in ending the filibuster in order to get Obama’s cabinet appointees through the process without any stall tactics from the Republicans. Just an up or down vote is all they wanted then.

But now, it’s ‘different.’

The following if from Jeff Dunetz:

Sometimes it’s a surprise when Sen. Schumer isn’t being a hypocrite, in this latest video from 2013  Chuck Schumer got to tag along at the end of a statement by then majority leader Harry Reid.  They announced they were ending the filibuster for most presidential appointments. Schumer said there should always be an up or down vote no matter who is in charge.

In the video below Reid drones on for one and a half minutes saying in part the there should be only two reasons for a filibuster:

“For the first 140 years as a country, there were no filibusters. The founding fathers were very clear in what they thought there should be supermajorities [for]. Impeachments. And, of course, on treaties. And in the same paragraph, as it deals with two-thirds votes, specifically the founding fathers did not mention, at all, other things other than those two things that required a super majority.”

Senator Schumer wrapped things up with:

We’d much prefer the risk of up or down votes in majority rule then the risk of continued total obstruction that’s the bottom line no matter who’s in pow…
Read the rest of the story and watch the VIDEOS at Jeff Dunetz’s blog The Lid

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com


About the author

Jeff Dunetz

Jeff Dunetz

Jeff is a Journalist, Blogger and one of the rare Jewish conservatives in a sea of north east liberal Jews (Thanksgiving dinner is a real pip). Jeff was honored with the 2014 Not For Profit Blogger of the Year award by the National Blogger's Club, is editor/publisher of The Lid (Lidblog.com), contributing reporter at MRCTV.org and Political Columnist for the newspaper, The Jewish Star.

Don't Miss Out!!

Get your daily dose of Eagle Rising by entering your email address below.

STAY IN THE LOOP
Don't miss a thing. Sign up for our email newsletter to become an insider.

Send this to a friend