Democrat Senator Spends the Night Filibustering Judge Gorsuch’s Nomination

Liberal Democrat Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) spent the evening filibustering the most qualified candidate for the Supreme Court we’ve seen in 20+ years. He began speaking at 6:45pm on Tuesday night and was still going as this story went to publication.

The question is… why?

Trending: Creepy Joe Biden One-Ups Hillary’s “Deplorables” Comment, Angers Americans

Normally, when someone launches a filibuster there is a credible reason to hold up legislative action and to shine a spotlight on a cause.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has launched a few of these talking filibusters over the years – usually in an effort to derail some aspect of the anti-Constitutional surveillance state. He’s decried the NSA spying, he argued against confirming John Brennan as the CIA chief, and he’s demanded that the Executive Branch admit that there are limits on their powers to KILL American citizens who are not an immediate danger to others without first subjecting them to a trial.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • 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.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) had one of the longer talking filibusters the Senate has ever seen lasting almost 22 full hours. Why was he talking? He was speaking out against Obamacare – a law that was passed with only Democrat votes, was unpopular with the majority of Americans, and saw the government take over one of the largest segments of the American economy. Cruz filibustered against what was an unprecedented overreach by the Democrat Party and was the single most destructive bill of the last half-century.

What is Jeff Merkley filibustering?

He is filibustering the Supreme Court nomination of a judge who has been hailed by both conservatives and liberals. He is filibustering a judge who was confirmed unanimously when he was first appointed to the federal bench and has since then been in the majority with 97% of his decisions and only been overturned by the Supreme Court once. He is filibustering a judge with an impeccable pedigree and a brilliant legal mind. In fact, the only thing unprecedented about the Gorsuch confirmation process has been the Democrat intransigence in dealing with reality.

After Gorsuch moved smoothly through his confirmation hearings and deftly outwitted Democrat attacks on his candidacy, they’ve simply decided to oppose him based on the fact that they don’t like Donald Trump. Something that Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has repeatedly admitted and Merkley mentioned again during his filibuster.

This coming from a woman who endorsed a candidate for President while the FBI was running MULTIPLE investigations into her activities and the activities of the Foundation bearing her name. Elizabeth Warren’s hypocrisy knows no bounds.

But Merkley has joined in with this ridiculous reasoning nonetheless.

Earlier in the night (or morning) Merkley was trying a different tactic… wondering why the GOP was attempting to confirm Judge Gorsuch so quickly? Sure, it’s been more than a month since Gorsuch was nominated and he’s successfully navigated his hearings and the media has fully vetted him… but apparently Merkley thinks that the NORMAL proceedings aren’t enough because he’s arguing that MAYBE one day someone might present evidence proving that Gorsuch is unfit. MAYBE.

Sadly, Merkley’s liberal sycophants in the media will no doubt praise his actions, even if he’s got no good reason to protest. Jeff Merkley is everything that is wrong with Washington, D.C. today and the fact that Democrats love his pointless protest is just another example of why the GOP now dominates local, state, and national government positions. 🇺🇸

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.