Not so very long ago, a number of Senate Republicans declared that, if a judicial nominee were filibustered in the Senate, we’d have a major constitutional crisis on our hands. Several of them declared publicly that they themselves would never undertake such shockingly scurrilous behavior.
Here, for example, is Lamar Alexander of Tennessee:
“I pledged, then and there, I would never filibuster any President’s judicial nominee, period. I might vote against them, but I will always see they came to a vote.” (Congressional Chronicle, June 9, 2005) …
“I have pledged and I still pledge to give up my right to filibuster any president’s nominee for the appellate courts.” [Remarks of Senator Alexander, 5/20/05]
Sen. Alexander today voted to filibuster the nomination of Goodwin Liu to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. So, that’s what his “pledge” is worth.
Or here’s Tom Coburn of Oklahoma:
If you look at the Constitution, it says the president is to nominate these people, and the Senate is to advise and consent. That means you got to have a vote if they come out of committee. (CNBC’s Kudlow & Company, Apr. 26, 2005)
Coburn also voted to filibuster Liu today. So, that tells you what Coburn thinks of the Constitution.
Here, too, are Senators Chambliss and Isakson of Georgia:
Every judge nominated by this president or any president deserves an up-or-down vote. It’s the responsibility of the Senate. The Constitution requires it. [The Atlanta Journal Constitution via Isakson.Senate.gov, “Filibusters obstruct the Senate’s duty,” 5/24/09]
Of course, Chambliss and Isakson voted to filibuster today. So much for the Constitution, and for the Senate’s “responsibility.”
I could go on and on. It’s remarkable how strong GOP Republicans’ statements were then, and how directly contrary to those statements today’s vote was. Even in a business where hypocrisy isn’t uncommon, what happened today is unusually grotesque.
In fact, it seem amusingly just given the nay cloture votes Obama himself cast repeatedly as a Senator on judicial nominees.
“nay cloture votes” aren’t at issue here. What IS at issue is the clear, distinct, unequivocal, well-documented and indisputably real examples of several Republican Senators stating without any qualifications, doubt, obfuscation,and with stunning clarity that they would never, ever, under any circumstances, do what it is they eventually went and did.
Now when you can come and show me examples of Candidate/Senator Obama stating unequivocally that he would never once cast a single “nay cloture vote”… then we can continue this conversation. But until such evidence is forthcomingt you’re inviting ridicule upon yourself. After all, you’re the one they lied to… I wasn’t gonna vote for them anyways.
On this very blog we have deviated from circa 2005 discussions, aka when the Democrats were out of power, favoring robust filibusters of Bush judicial nominations, including those of our two Senators and our current President against eminently qualified Roberts and the surprisingly unpredictable Alito. Then the filibuster was the saviour of the Republic protecting us from extremist right wing nominees. And the Republicans claimed filibusters are evil. Now Reid, who fought to preserve the filibuster against Frist’s assault on it, is now arguing the filibuster is evil because it blocks Democratic appointments, and Republicans are using the same tool they decried. The only people who look good in this whole controversy are those that vote on the basis of qualification not ideology. Lindsey Graham, wrong on many fronts, has distinguished himself by voting for all four of the most recent Supreme Court nominees regardless of their ideology by praising their qualifications. Only the most radical extremists should be barred from the court, far rightists like Bork and Haynsworth who would have turned back the clock on Brown v Board, or corrupt justices like Fortas. Similarly by that standard Professor Liu should also be confirmed, he is apparently one year shy of ABA recommended qualification for a federal judgeship, but other than that is a distinguished constitutional scholar and the only thing that makes him “unqualified” are his progressive views I guess. Those that say an up or down vote for their justices, and voting on the basis of qualifications, should be ashamed of themselves for their hypocrisy.
Conservatives are arguing he is unqualified and it must be because of his progressive views, his progressive views do not disqualify him in my judgment, in fact that make me eager to see him confirmed.
They are politicians after all, and talking about the filibuster.
Kudos to you then, for meeting AND EXCEEDING this staggering hypocrisy by criticizing it for being hypocritical. It is like meta-hypocrisy, transcending ordinary hypocrisy: a feat unmatched on BMG since the appointment of someone to fill a vacant Senate seat by the governor went from a travesty of democracy to essential to the future of the republic, just because the governor was different.
to back up what you say by linking back to posts on BMG where we did what you accuse us of, and explaining your argument coherently.
After you wipe the spittle off your screen, that is. 😉
You weren’t blogging in July 2004 when they removed the appointment power, and therefore could not have supported that change on BMG.
So, “unmatched on BMG” is withdrawn and replaced with “unmatched among Democrats.”
July 2004: Senator Kennedy urges legislature to strip governor of ability to fill vacant Senate seat by appointment– even by “interim” appointment (Romney’s suggested compromise). See also the Globe. Democrats readily oblige.
July 2009: Senator Kennedy urges legislature to grant governor ability to fill vacant Senate seat by appointment. Democrats readily oblige.
1) I reserved the right to be amused at the outcome. The result seems quite just given Senator Obama’s rather extreme conduct toward judicial nominees in cloture votes.
2) I don’t have very high expectations of the psychopathic personalities which tend to inhabit political office. Frankly, hypocrisy registers mighty low on my outrage meter.
3) Those Senators didn’t pledge anything to me, they’re not my Senators (i.e. I wouldn’t be voting for them either). If your foolish presumption was that I support the position (using cloture to inhibit an up/down vote), you’d be totally incorrect.
4) Since when does having a different take on things “invite ridicule”? You realize shaming behavior is an abuse pathology and isn’t very conducive to meaningful commentary?
I never believed any of them were telling the truth in the first place. They were simply lying because it made them look good. I wish I could say that Democrats don’t do the same thing all too often.
Really we should get rid of the filibuster to remove all of this artificial posturing. Or at least bring the filibuster back to its original intent of providing a mechanism to prevent a simple majority from stifling debate. Filibustering should allow the debate to continue for some set period of time but not indefinitely.
My sacred cow of the filibuster is being abused left and right for partisan purposes, it might just be easier if we just get rid of the whole thing or created a mechanism that severely limits its use to its original function to prolong debate and protect minority representation and speech within the chamber. A ‘filibuster’ where one senator just screams ‘filibuster’ and suddenly everything needs 60 votes to pass is hardly a filibuster. I want Mr. Smith, Sen. Sanders, or Sen. Thurmond (length rather than racist content) style filibusters rather than this tripe that both parties just abuse for their purposes.