Powered by Topple

Law professor: ‘The McConnell Rule is law, and Senate Democrats should file lawsuit to enforce it’

Powered by Topple

Democrats understand that should Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell keep his Republican caucus focused, there’s little they can do to prevent a nominee from being approved to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

With President Donald Trump expected to announce this week his choice to replace Kennedy, liberals are desperate to prevent Republicans from shaping the high court for decades to come, and doing it before the midterm elections, as seen in an op-ed run by The Hill calling on Senate Democrats to sue McConnell.

(Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

Penned by Ken Levy, a professor of law at Louisiana State University, the piece says Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and his merry band of obstructionists need to “file a federal lawsuit against him for violating the so-called “McConnell Rule.”

Of course, there is no such rule — but then, the left is more than happy to make up the rules as they along.

What Levy is referring to is McConnell refusing to allow a confirmation vote on the nominee of a termed out President Barack Obama, coming during his final months in office.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” McConnell said at the time.

Democrats were warned by McConnell when former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was running roughshod over established rules to force their progressive agenda down our throats that they would “come to regret” implementing the nuclear option.

Yet, Levy now has the temerity to gripe about Democrats having a “legal recourse.”

“The minority party needs to have some remedy, some legal recourse, when the majority leader is completely immune to considerations of fairness and consistency in his exercise of the Senate’s substantial constitutional powers,” he wrote.

What the liberal professor doesn’t grasp is that McConnell wasn’t focused on whether the Senate should approve a Supreme Court nominee, but on WHO gets to name that nominee — a “constitutionally lame-duck” president, or a newly elected president.

In the end, Levy’s call for legal action is little more than a Hail Mary. A desperate ploy based on the understanding that our courts are stacked with liberal judges who aren’t above placing politics before the rule of law — activist judges willing to contort laws beyond recognition in the pursuit of a political agenda.

But don’t take my work for it that Levy’s proposition gets a failing grade — here’s a sampling of responses from Twitter:



Tom Tillison


Latest Articles