NYT says Trump Could Put Ted Cruz on Supreme Court, Dems Can’t Stop it

[HAPPY2BME]

Senate Democrats are playing with fire by not coming out and giving Neil Gorsuch the votes he needs to be confirmed to the United States Supreme Court.

A reporter for the New York Times, Jeremy Peters, appeared on MSNBC on Monday and laid out the potential consequences of the Democrats not playing ball with the Republicans.

NTK Network reported:

“And now the next one, we know, he will have carte blanche,” Peters said. “He could say, ‘You know what? I’m going to nominate Ted Cruz, Democrats, because you screwed around with me last time. You tried to block my nominee who by all accounts did very well in his confirmation hearings, has unquestionable qualifications.’”

Peters said that Democrats’ resistance to Gorsuch was “short-sighted” due to this fact.

He also criticized Democrats for doing away with the filibuster in 2013 for judicial appointments and said they only had themselves to blame for the current situation.

“When the Democrats changed that rule in 2013, they opened the door for this to happen,” Peters said.


http://americanlookout.com/rms-do-it-nyt-says-trump-could-put-ted-cruz-on-supreme-court-dems-cant-stop/

[BlueStateSaint]

I'm all in favor of this.  Senator Cruz is incredibly intelligent and can argue points of the law all day long, and in his sleep afterwards.  The thing is, he'd still be more lucid than anyone that the Dems could put up for the seat.  He'd be a huge asset to the SCOUTS.

[franksolich]

I'm all in favor of this.  Senator Cruz is incredibly intelligent and can argue points of the law all day long, and in his sleep afterwards.  The thing is, he'd still be more lucid than anyone that the Dems could put up for the seat.  He'd be a huge asset to the SCOUTS.

I got no problem with Cruz on the Supreme Court.

But of course I still think that, to get the primitives all wound up, President Trump should first consider Vladimir Putin for any vacancy.  I'm not saying he should do it; I am saying he should consider it, publicly, just to give the Democrats, liberals, and primitives apoplexy.

[SVPete]

Peters said that Democrats’ resistance to Gorsuch was “short-sighted” due to this fact.

He also criticized Democrats for doing away with the filibuster in 2013 for judicial appointments and said they only had themselves to blame for the current situation.

“When the Democrats changed that rule in 2013, they opened the door for this to happen,” Peters said.

Short-sighted? Yes. NYT reporter Peters should also have said "petulant" or "petty" or "sore-loser".

The consequence of 2013? Well, yes, but it's now the second to last link in a chain of causation. Harry Reid's action flowed from a consequence of Ds blocking bunches of  G. W. Bush's judge nominees, which was a continuation of Ds' blocking of G. H. W. Bush's judicial nominees.

NYT reporter Peters' honesty is refreshing, but qualified both by things he did not say and by his saying it AFTER the fact. D petulance, short-sightedness, and the consequences of a filibuster attempt were blatantly obvious pretty much from November 9, 2016.