Blocking Supreme Court nominees—some history

There has been much news “buzz” surrounding the recent appointment and approval of Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court. And recently in this paper, unsuccessful U.S. Senate candidate Michael Lucik Thrames presented an open letter to Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley. The letter declared Iowans as uniformly enraged by the refusal by Grassley, and others, to bring Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland to a floor vote in 2016. Grassley is the powerful Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Thrames, an independent, accused Grassley of all sorts of unseemly things including “party-line-towing intransience” regarding the Garland nomination, and implored Grassley to depart from his traditional party loyalty. However convincing Thrames may seem to be, and whatever side of this dispute one might find oneself, it’s important to gather a few facts on this issue before reaching a conclusion. First, let’s take a look at what’s happened since Thrames’ letter was published.
Republicans decided to “go nuclear” to assure a vote for Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch. This prevented democrats from blocking, via filibuster, an up or down vote on the Senate floor. Gorsuch ultimately obtained the majority vote which is required for confirmation. He has now been sworn in.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer would have blocked a vote by using the filibuster. He claims this “stonewalling” started in 2016 when the republicans refused to have a vote on Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland. A review of history corrects that falsehood:
• In 1987 Robert Bork, a Reagan nominee, was denied confirmation. His reputation was brutally pilloried in an obviously unfair and outrageous outburst from the Senate floor.
• In 1992, then-Sen. Biden clearly outlined the reasons why the Senate wouldn’t consider a George H.W. Bush nomination in Bush’s last year in office.
• In 2001 during George W. Bush’s administration, Sen. Schumer and others changed the ground rules for systematically using the filibuster to block Supreme Court nominees.
• In 2006, then-Senator Obama publicly supported a filibuster to block confirmation of Justice Alito.
• In 2007, 19 months before the end of “’W’s” term, Senator Schumer declared that the lame-duck President would get no nominees through the Democratic Senate, “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
Following the recent frenzy, Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey assured us the democrats would return the 60 vote margin required to end a Senate filibuster. To that I can only say that I’d have to see it to believe it. For my part, I’m ambivalent on the function of the filibuster as it relates to the “advice and consent” function of the Senate relative to Presidential appointments of all kinds. I believe the value of the filibuster comes into play in the Senate’s lawmaking responsibilities and the related debate. The legislative filibuster is what we must protect, because it’s that function in which the Founders were most interested in establishing and maintaining deliberation and thorough debate.
In conclusion, there’s no clear-cut “good guys” in the Supreme Court nominee/filibuster controversy. But, however silly you consider these proceedings and debate, Republicans didn’t start this foolish “food fight”!