11 years ago, Harry Reid argued the Senate has no Constitutional duty to approve President George W. Bush’s Supreme Court nominee. REID: Duties of the United States Senate are set forth in the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has the duty to give presidential nominees a vote.
But with a Democrat in the White House now, Reid has changed his tune.
CHUCK TODD: And yet 11 years later, you wrote this. “The Senate’s constitutional duty to give a fair and timely hearing and a floor vote to the president’s Supreme Court nominees has remained inviolable.”
I guess I’m confused. Which is it? What’s changed from 2005 - when you said there’s nothing in the Constitution that said a vote - to 2016?
Reid chose to not answer the question by babbling about fighting obstruction.
REID: What I’ve tried to do during my entire career in Congress and in the Senate is to get rid of obstruction. I don’t believe in it.
Reid then got caught in his own hypocrisy.
TODD: But wait a minute. [Sam] Alito, you did a filibuster for Alito and Roberts.
REID: Where is Alito today?
TODD: If failed, it failed but you wanted one. That’s a form of obstruction back when President Bush was in office.
Reid then got confused about the “Biden Rule.”
REID: There is no Biden rule. What happened then was worked out.
The ’Biden Rule” is what Senate Republicans are citing in their rejection to see President Obama’s nominee.
BIDEN: That once the political season is underway - and it is - action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process.
Ironically enough, just three days before talking to Chuck Todd, Harry Reid supported the “Biden Rule.”
LEIGH WOLF: Can you address the “Biden Rule” the Republicans are citing?
REID: I wish they would follow it.
So which is it, Senator? Were you lying 11 years ago, or are you lying now?