Dems on judicial nominations

[TitanTiger 20,506]

We're all quite familiar with how the Democrats are handling key judicial nominations now. How does their philosophy jive with what they said when their man was submitting the nominations?

Tom Daschle (D-SD): "I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination."

Tom Harkin (D-IA): "Have the guts to come out and vote up or down....And once and for all, put behind us this filibuster procedure on nominations.."

Joseph Biden (D-DE): "everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a ... vote on the floor."

Richard Durbin (D-IL): "If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be.  Vote the person up or down."

Carl Levin (D-MI): "If a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate is prepared to vote to confirm the President's appointment, that vote should occur."

Edward Kennedy (D-MA): "If our ... colleagues don't like them, vote against them.  But give them a vote."

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): "Let's bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down."

Patrick Leahy (D-VT): "I have stated over and over again ... that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported."

Joseph Lieberman (D-CT): The filibuster "has unfortunately become a commonplace tactic to thwart the will of the majority."

[MDM4AU 336]

That's great!

These are my favorites:

Edward Kennedy (D-MA): "If our ... colleagues don't like them, vote against them. But give them a vote."

Joseph Lieberman (D-CT): The filibuster "has unfortunately become a commonplace tactic to thwart the will of the majority."

Patrick Leahy (D-VT): "I have stated over and over again ... that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported."

I'm sure there will be some spin on this by the end of the day, though.

[Tigermike 3,044]

But of course, it would be too much to think they actually believed what they said!

[Tiger Al 0]

164 confirmed nominations. Quit your whining.

[MDM4AU 336]

Al, nice reply but does it make those quoted above look like any less the jackasses?

[DKW 86 7,434]

It is just political payback guys.

If you want to play politics, you got to learn to ake a shot to the face every now and then. We held up 100s of Clinton's nominations, this is just payback.

No blood, no foul.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

164 confirmed nominations. Quit your whining.

164 confirmed nominations - but to lessers courts. These that are being held up are Federal Appeals Courts, District Courts and Circuit Courts. The REAL issue, which few care to mention, is that Federal Courts are where SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS come from - if these people, who are some of the best and brightest, get approved for these courts, they automatically become front-runners for any Supreme Court nominations Bush may get to make one day. THAT is why the libs are fighting this - they don't want to lose control over the federal courts where they attempt to legislate policy by judicial decree, and they DON'T want previously confirmed Bush appointees having an easy time being approved for an appointment to SCOTHUS.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

It is just political payback guys.

If you want to play politics, you got to learn to ake a shot to the face every now and then. We held up 100s of Clinton's nominations, this is just payback.

No blood, no foul.

I posted this on another thread, but it is worth repeating:

There is not one instance in our history where EITHER party conducted a filibuster in the Senate to PREVENT a vote on a judicial confirmation where that judge had already been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and where there were a majority of votes on the Senate floor to confirm.

The obstruction of any Clinton appointees must have been in committee - which meant they probably would not have had the votes to win passage in the full Senate either.

[TitanTiger 20,506]

Furthermore, on Jenny's point about Republicans using committees to block appointees, THAT is a time-honored way of pulling something like this off. Georgetown Law Professor Mark Tushnet (not exactly a big Bush fan) says about the use of filibusters:

"There's a difference between the use of the filibuster to derail a nomination and the use of other Senate rules — on scheduling, on not having a floor vote without prior committee action, etc. — to do so. All those other rules . . . can be overridden by a majority vote of the Senate . . . whereas the filibuster rule can't be overridden that way.  A majority of the Senate could ride herd on a rogue Judiciary Committee chair who refused to hold a hearing on some nominee; it can't do so with respect to a filibuster." and that "...the Democrats' filibuster is . . . a repudiation of a settled pre-constitutional understanding."

They can cry "168-4" all day. But the fact of the matter is, until now, no judicial nominee who has enjoyed the support of a majority of senators has ever been denied an up-or-down vote. Not during the Clinton years...not even with the Republicans in control of the Senate. Never. Because the Constitution gives the full Congress the power to override holdups in committee with simple majority votes.

Don't buy the spin that they are just doing what the Republicans did to them. It's bull and they know it.