Democrat Leader Has No Answer for Why Democrats Won’t Allow Vote on Judge Gorsuch

This may be the most cringe-worthy interview of 2017.

For the first 4 minutes Chuck Todd begs Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) to give him a reason why she refuses to allow Judge Neil Gorsuch to come before the Senate for a confirmation vote. Multiple times Stabenow offers the same tortured excuses explaining why she won’t be voting for Gorsuch, but for some reason she remains unable to explain why the Democrats plan to refuse to even bring him up for a vote.

The poor MSNBC host simply can’t understand the Democrat hypocrisy of blocking a vote on Gorsuch after they complained about Republicans doing the same with Judge Merrick garland. “What I’m saying is, do two wrongs make a right here? Or three wrongs? Or four wrongs? Or five wrongs?” Todd asked. “It’s not about wrong or right,” Stabenow replied. “Chuck, it’s not about wrong or right.”

After about 4 1/2 minutes, Todd finally gives up on trying to wrest an excuse out of Stabenow, and moves on to the possibility of Republicans using the nuclear option to confirm Judge Gorsuch. Stabenow once again responded as hypocritically as humanly possible.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back?

  • Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Constitution updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Fuel for Thought

Stabenow: “When Senate Democrats had that choice to make, we said no. There should be a 60 vote threshold so there’s a bipartisan vote on the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Todd tried to hold her accountable for her part in the “nuclear option” disaster.

Todd: “But only on the Supreme Court, didn’t we go down the road of a slippery slope here when the decision was made by Harry Reid to say, ‘you know what, we’re tired of the obstruction on the lower courts so we’re going to get rid of this filibuster.’ It was inevitable that this was going to be the reaction of the other side once they got power, which was the warning many people made to Senator Reid, including your former colleague Senator Carl Levin.”

But Stabenow would not accept blame and remained focused on demonizing the GOP.

Stabenow: “Chuck, what I would say is that we made the decision, conscious decision, thoughtful, debated in our caucus that it was better for the country to keep the 60-vote threshold on the highest court in the land, lifetime appointment and that’s something that Mitch McConnell can decide and his caucus can decide as well.”

Watch the whole cringeworthy mess below:

Constitution.com 🇺🇸

I am the supreme law of the United States. Originally comprising seven articles, I delineate the national frame of government. My first three articles entrench the doctrine of the separation of powers, whereby the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameral Congress; the executive, consisting of the President; and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Articles Four, Five and Six entrench concepts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments and of the states in relationship to the federal government. Article Seven establishes the procedure subsequently used by the thirteen States to ratify it. I am regarded as the oldest written and codified constitution in force of the world.

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.