VP hopeful Tim Kaine made it clear that if Hillary won, the administration would have invoked the nuclear option. As an aside, there is nothing nuclear about it. It’s majority rules over an artificial vote of ’60’.

Tim Kaine was clear about which way their administration would go on the issue. “If these guys think they’re going to stonewall the filling of that vacancy or other vacancies, then a Democratic Senate majority will say, ‘we’re not going to let you thwart the law. And so we will change the Senate rules to uphold the law, that the court will be nine members,” Sen. Tim Kaine said to the Huffington Post in October of 2016.

In a videotaped campaign message, he said, “I am predicting that if the Republicans continue to stonewall, then I think that will happen. Again, I’m not revealing inside intel this is a prediction,” Kaine said.

In other words, if Hillary Clinton won, she would have invoked the nuclear option.

via MRC TV

Democrats abandoned the nuclear option in 2013 for all but the Supreme Court to strip minority parties of the right to filibuster. Reid wanted all of Obama’s radical left judicial nominees appointed as part of the Democrat takeover of the judiciary.

The former Senate leader wanted any excuse to invoke the nuclear option. If Democrats could have done it for Merrick Garland, they would have. If they get a chance to do it in 2018, they will.

In 2013, Reid was cheered on by MSNBC, CNN, the LA Times and others, all but Fox News.

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes hailed it as “an affirmative win for democracy,” while colleague Rachel Maddow bellowed, “This is a huge freaking deal. This is like 3-inch headlines. This is like people who don’t even care about politics really ought to care about this.”

CNN political analyst Paul Begala applauded the partisan maneuver by Reid as necessary because Republicans had “so abused” the filibuster that Democrats “can’t take it anymore.”

Video Via Political Heat

The Los Angeles Times celebrated it in a November 22 editorial “Democrats bust the filibuster, and good for them.”

“We welcome this action not because it represents a comeuppance for arrogant Republicans but because filibustering presidential nominees is undemocratic and violates the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution, which says that the president shall appoint judges and other officials ‘by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’ — not by and with a supermajority of the Senate.” The Times went on to call it “a victory not just for the Democrats but for good government.”

They have also been just as vehemently opposed as they are now, but it always depends on whether they benefit or not.

CNN reported Thursday that invoking the nuclear option was unprecedented which was very misleading. The only thing that is unprecedented is filibustering a Supreme Court nominee as Democrats have done.