Reporter's Note: Roev is the conservative majority of the Supreme Court. The trio that overturned Wade

NEWYou can now listen to FoxNews articles.

Roe v. Three are most responsible for the recent Supreme Court decision to overturn Wade: Former President Trump, late Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed, D-Nev. , And Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

All of the confirmations of President Trump's three judgesagainst the High Court stem from a phenomenon in the Senate known as the "nuclear choice." I'll talk about that later. But first, look at Mr. Trump's role in all of this.

Frankly, the former president had little to do with that of the winner. He was the incumbent president. When presented with three openings to the Supreme Court, the president tapped three conservative legal scholars: Justice Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kabanau, and Amy Connie Barrett. It dramatically titled the Supreme Court to the right and presented the court with an essential "6-3" majority. 

The otherRepublican President, facing three vacancies, would have done the same as Mr. Trump. It is possible to argue whether the former president should have tried to select a "consensus" candidate for the Supreme Court. Candidates that can appeal to Republicans and perhaps some Democrats. 

How Mitch McConnell, who plays the "long game", shaped the best court and led to the end of Abort's Landmark Law

In fact, the former president may have tapped Barrett because she is very conservative and could help Mr. Trump in the pending 2020 presidential election. I have. Also attended was Judge Barbara Lagoa of the Conservative 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. But she wouldn't have been as enthusiastic about GOP voters (and therefore Republican Senators) as Barrett.

So the president went with Barrett.

Now let's find out how Harry Reed was involved in all of this. 

The Democratic Party dominated the Senate in 2013. Reed was the leader of the majority. Reed and other Democrats have complained to Senate Republicans who are obstructing or delaying President Barakuobama's lower courts and many of the administrative candidates. GOP members can do this because of agenda. In 2013, it took 60 years to end the debate and overcome the agenda obstruction of the judiciary or administrative candidate. Republicans often demanded that Democrats carry out their agenda traps. However, performing all the steps consumed a lot of Senate bandwidth. 

In the summer of 2013, all 100 Senators attended a meeting in the old Senate CapitolThey should process some candidates quickly. Seems to have agreed. They withdrew their plans to change the agenda. By the fall, Reed and the Democratic Party had enough of the Republican stall, and in November 2013, the Democratic Party exploded what became known as the "nuclear option."

Warner regrets Harry Reed's change in Philibuster:'I wish I hadn't even started this'

Almost everything in the Senate is controversial. That is why there is agenda. Senators can speak, speak, or delay or delay unless blocked by what is called a "call of the clocher". If 60 Senators voted to "call the Crocher," the discussion was further limited to 30 hours. The Senate can then actually vote to confirm or reject the candidate. 

However, Republicans continued to interfere with Mr. Obama's candidate. Therefore, Reed put the problem in his hands in November 2013.

Remember when I say "almost everything" is controversial in the Senate. Well, not all.

There is one indisputable thing in the Senate. It's a failed clocher vote to end the discussion. Reed has set the Senate floor schedule so that the Senate can revisit the failure of the clocher vote to end the discussion about the candidate, but the exact parliamentary situation is a procedural dead end. It is indisputable to move to re-vote a failed procedural vote to end the discussion. No discussion is allowed. It couldn't interfere with the proceedings, and Reed wanted the Senate to reconsider the failure to vote. 

GOPer couldn't do anything about it.

Recall Reed: Senate political punch throwers say goodbye and leave traces of guffs

In such cases, the Senate Is a nominee who votes for the block. It takes 60 years. Reed then asked Senator Patrick Leehee, the chairman, if it was the Senate's practice to demand 51 votes to break the agenda of lower court and executive candidates. Lee Hee replied that it wasn't. However, Reed disputed Lee Hee's decision and triggered a vote to dismiss Lee Hee. In other words, Reed got the answer he wanted from Lee Hee (and by the way, Lee Hee was in the gig). It allows him to call a roll call vote to challenge Lee Hee's orders. A simple majority is required for a successful vote to appeal the chair's decision. As a result, a majority of Senators voted against Lee Hee, setting a new precedent in the Senate. So far, it took 51 years instead of 60 to end the agenda against lower court and executive candidates.

That is the nuclear choice. 

Please note that this "nuclear option" applies only to candidates for lower courts and executive offices. That statement is the most important in this conversation. It only takes a simple majority in the Senate to end the agenda for both lower judicial and executive candidates. However, the Senate left two things untouched. A candidate for the Supreme Court with 60 votes to cut off agenda for legislation.

First, the Supreme Court candidate has never demanded 60 years to break the agenda. The late Judge Abe Fortus was already in the High Court when faced with an obstruction to the appointment of the Supreme Court of the United States. The agenda killed the nomination — that's why we never had the Supreme Judiciary named Fortas.

Late judge Antonin Scalia died suddenly in February 2016. At that time, the Senate was dominated by Republicans. By nightfall, and without consultation with GOP members, McConnell, the then-majority leader, made an amazing announcement. He found it inappropriate for the Senate to consider candidates for the High Court in the year of the election.

Scalia of justice, a conservative leader, a family remembered in mass service for his dedication to faith

President Obama still nominated Merrick Garland the best; but McConnell and Senate Republicans never flirted. That's why Garland is today's lawyer, not quasi-justice.

Garland(or someone who may be nominated by Mr. Obama) is blocked The decision was McConnell's idea and only his idea.

Fast forward in the spring of 2017. 

Scalia's seat remained vacant. President Trump is in the White House. Democrats believe that Republicans have mistaken them by preventing Garland from even coming before the Senate. So Democrats were ready to begin unprecedented obstruction of the proceedings against Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination. 

Republicans lacked 60 votes to overcome the expected obstruction of Gorsuch's nominationMcConnell expected this, as well. Returned the Senate to the dead end of Congress —  Just as Reid did in 2013. So McConnell ripped the page from Reid's playbook and ran "Nuclear Option II". The Senate then set a new precedent for ending the agenda — especially for Supreme Court candidates. Such candidates are not 60 years old and only need a simple majority to end the agenda. 

Social conservative'FRUSTRATED'OVER TRUMP SUPREME COURT JUSTICES'RULINGS

The Senate would not have confirmed Gosatch without "Nuclear Option II". The same is true for Kavanaugh and Barrett.

This is part of the reason why the Kabanau hearing in the fall of 2018 is so noisy. 

McConnell's boldness shocked Democrats. It was one thing for Kentucky Republicans to block Garland in the year of the election, but what responsibility McConnell has for confirming Barrett not only for Gorsuch and Kavanau, but a few days before the 2020 presidential election. It was a completely different level that I didn't bear. 

Indeed, if the lead did not become nuclear in 2013, it can be argued that McConnell may not have performed the "Nuclear Option II" operation. , Kavanaugh and Barrett in the Supreme Court-whatever. 

Click here to get the FOX NEWSAPP

I don't know.

However, we know that former President Reed and McConnell each share a responsibility to support the formation of the current court. As a result, last week's Supreme Court ruling was accepted by the right and disliked by the left.