Democrats rue their change of filibuster rules

Washington Examiner:

We're less than three weeks away from the Trump administration, and Democrats who cheered on President Obama's various usurpations of power are looking forward to a lot of regrets.

But already, one major Democratic abuse — taken not by Obama but by Democrats hoping to empower him — has Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., feeling some buyer's remorse:

"I argued against it at the time," Schumer said today of the so-called nuclear option, which abolished the 60-vote requirement in the Senate to move most presidential nominations. "I said both for Supreme Court and in Cabinet should be 60 because on such important positions there should be some degree of bipartisanship. I won on Supreme Court, lost on Cabinet. But it's what we have to live with now."

Schumer kept his opposition to himself, though. He still voted for that change in November 2013, which passed 52-48. This fall, when asked about the possibility of expanding the nuclear option to end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees as well, Schumer merely said, "I hope we won't get to that. And I'll leave it at that."

But some other Democrats were rather out-and-proud about their accomplishment, and were threatening to expand their power further right up to their recent stunning election loss. On Oct. 28, just a week before the election, Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Tim Kaine was threatening to expand the nuclear option to confirm Hillary Clinton's Supreme Court nominees in 2017 and thereafter.
...

There is more.

In lieu of a filibuster, Schumer, and the democrats are threatening to drag out the votes on Trump nominees by other procedural gambits and demands for information. Republicans are going to be throwing their own words back at them.  But, Democrats are pretty shameless when it comes to hypocrisy.