Judicial Filibuster Hypocrisy Watch
Remember the BushCo era judicial wars? The ones where Republicans lectured us all at length about how filibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional? Well, if you don’t remember, Media Matters has gone through the CSPAN archives to remind you of many of those lectures. At Democracy or Hypocrisy you can see multiple videos of the usual suspects reminding you of their conviction that a filibuster of a judicial nominee is not constitutional. A thing that the rank and file dutifully repeated at the behest of their radio handlers, because Democrats were standing in the way of their wingnut fantasies. Here’s Part I of Mitch McConnell making the case in May 2005:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVtBLWJpfE0[/youtube]
Be sure to see them all. Because not only are elements of the GOP base are pushing hard for a filibuster of Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court and a Lifetime Member of the Supreme High Wingnut Council — James Inhofe — has promised to filibuster the very middle of the road Judge Hamilton, who was voted out of the Judiciary Committee today. As Steve Benen points out, Inhofe argued for a filibuster of judges to be unconstitutional. Wonder why it isn’t unconstitutional now? So how long will it take for the entire GOP contingent to completely reverse — flip flop! — themselves on the unconstitutionality of filibustering a judge’s nomination?
Tags: Judges, Republican Bamboozlement
I guess that you forgot that we had a vote and we lost. The case was made and almost all Democrats including our current President, VP, S of S, and S of I, along with around 10 Republicans disagreed. I think it is called accepting the results and playing by the rules. People don’t stick to rules that don’t exist. That is what we call the Democratic process.
If Democrats are worried about it, let them bring a rule change right now and I bet there would be enough Republicans to give it a 2/3 vote. They don’t want to give up the option. They have no right to complain.
I wouldn’t worry, there will not be a successful filibuster unless Democrats join it to replace McCain, Graham, Collins, and Snowe. You guys are worrying before it is time. It is like people worrying about President Obama’s speech before it was given.
This nomination is in the hands of pro-gun Democrats. They are the ones to watch.
I didn’t forget anything. And the rest of your post is the usual gibberish.
The point being that when Bush was sending up wingnut after wingnut to be confirmed to judgeships, your guys thought that filabustering was quite beyond the pale. Now — not so much. You know, the usual hypocrisy.
But the point remains that the GOP lost that battle, and the settled precedent is that the filibuster is an acceptable option in confirmation cases.
In other words, the change in the facts makes the use of the filibuster neither improper nor hypocritical.
Let me give you an alternative hypothetical. I believe hate crime laws are unwise and probably unconstitutional. However, if such a law is passed and I am the victim of a crime that meets the definition, I would DEMAND that the crime be pursued as a hate crime — because having lost, I have every right to avail myself of equal protection of the laws.
But the point remains that the GOP lost that battle, and the settled precedent is that the filibuster is an acceptable option in confirmation ca
Ass,
I was also a settled question when the GOP asswipes were mounting their high horses. That’s the point dummy.
Democrats filibuster and try to block Republicans when the GOP is in power, and then cry foul when it is their turn at the helm. If the situation is reversed, the same thing will happen, and I’ll be doing a post reminding you all what the D Senators said about Sotomayor.
They’re all hypocrites.
The same people who gave histrionic speeches about “up or down vote” and were all set to get rid of the filibuster are now big fans of the filibuster. I haven’t seen any speeches by Democrats saying that filibusters are unconstitutional.
But the point remains that the GOP lost that battle, and the settled precedent is that the filibuster is an acceptable option in confirmation cases.
The point remains that when the GOP was having on about an up or down vote, they were claiming constitutional principle. Apparently that is only operative when they are trying to get their own judges voted on.
Which means it isn’t principle at all — just the usual hypocrisy.
“I haven’t seen any speeches by Democrats saying that filibusters are unconstitutional.”
That’s because the Democrats are the only people ever to try a filibuster of a new justice, I believe. The only others were elevations to the chief justice position, iirc.
The GOP stood on principle and lost. The majority held (and still holds) that a filibuster is a legitimate tool in a confirmation fight. While many of us still believe it should not be, we recognize that the current rules of the US Senate hold that it is, and some members of the party may therefore take advantage of those rules.
Now if you have an objection to the filibuster, by all means demand that the rules be changed so that an up-or-down vote is mandated — but don’t claim anyone is hypocritical for following the rules that your side insisted upon.
By the way — if the Democrats stood upon the principles historically enunciated by their party, Barack Obama would be riding in the back of a bus to his job as a janitor at the White House.
Too bad for you RWR that all of the white supremacists found a comfortable place in your party after they got the clue that Lyndon Johnson was serious about civil rights and inclusion. I gather you’ve heard all of the racialist commentary your guys are frothing at the mouth with over Judge Sotomayor?
And the point still stands that the only principle the GOP has here is completely opportunistic. You people have been spending the months since the election rending your garments over not being consistently conservative enough; not being consistently principled enough. And here you are still saying one thing and doing something else all together.
Same as it ever was.
Classy.
The point stands that Republicans bitched and moaned to the point of trying to rewrite the rules because they thought they were going to have a 1,000 year Reich and they didn’t want the minority to have any rights whatsoever.
The reign of error is over and now they can suck it.
That’s right. You, RWR, can suck it. And guess what, unlike you – we will not try to take a way your minority rights. So suck that too. Suck it hard.
Actually, it was and is the GOP that is serious about civil rights and inclusion. Your party still practices the politics of racial division.
And I repeat — we lost the battle over the filibuster. The majority views it as constitutionally permissible, and has included it in the rules — and so we are simply conforming to the rules as established by the majority.
And as for opposing Sonia Sotomayor, maybe I simply believe that a wise white man will more often make a correct judgment than a wise Latina woman.
**Moderated**
Actually, it was and is the GOP that is serious about civil rights and inclusion.
Well — no. But I get that you people badly need this delusion. If you cared about civil rights and inclusion you wouldn’t be the party of Old White Men. Who are apparently making enough judgments for you to keep you marginalized for quite some time.
So, let me get this straight — Jason can spew assorted profanity at anyone who dares to dissent (it is the highest form of patriotism, you know), but a target who responds pretty mildly in response gets censored?
Dare we speak of hypocrisy and double standards?
But I do apologize for making the comment about Jason’s mother.
We are really sure that your rubber pants are hurting you, too. You’ll calm down once you fix that and take a nap.
Bye!
Nah — just shocked by the hypocrisy of it all.
Those are your rubber pants. Just get them off of your head and you’ll be fine.
After you remove your tinfoil hat, Cassie-baby.
Not tinfoil — but you’ll see better with those rubber pants off of your head. Seriously.
As I said, following the rules is called following the rules. You can’t complain about the rules you guys fought for, wrote, and voted in with Democrat votes. There is no hypocrisy. You could wait until there actually is a sustained filibuster to claim hypocrisy. One has not even been launched.
You may think it is gibberish, but I still say that unless something happens that pulls Democrats into it, there will be none. Democrats are in charge of this nomination. The gang of 14 made a deal and it will hold. There will not be a partisan filibuster.
It isn’t about rules — it is about the remarkable lack of coherence the GOP has over it’s so-called “principles”. This opportunistic adherence to these so-called “principles” is why you are in your current dire straits.
Wrong, it has to do with the fact that a theory was put up, debated for two years and voted down. The majority leader who advanced it has retired. Maybe if Bill Frist were engaging in a filibuster, it would have some relevance, but even then the only way to change the rules is to apply them to both sides. Only when both oxes are gored will the majority agree to outlaw ox goring.
McConnell has the show not Frist. He rightfully refuses unilateral disarmament. With that said, I bet he won’t fire. The only people who have been doing that are Democrats.
It is what the rules allow. The Democrats refused to change the rules as recently as January.
As I said, no one is being filibuster so your argument is premature if it had merit.
This hypocrisy argument either reflects ignorance of the political process or more likely thinks we are ignorant of it.
I would point out the reason it was called the nuclear option is that many Republicans viewed it as the last option to end a completely unprecedented abuse of the process by Democrats. They were willing to end the right of both sides to filibuster if necessary, but the gang of 14 reached a deal to make that unnecessary.
I don’t know if you understand business or politics, but it is called a negotiating position. Once the contract is agreed upon, you don’t go back 4 years later and say but you said Y during negotiations. They will say we agreed to Z and Z is what is in the contract and legally binding.
I look forward to the day when the Senate says Supreme Court nominations have a special cloture procedure to allow an eventual majority vote. That will be a rules change. Then and now both sides will operate under the rules agreed upon.
When you’ve botched your argument, you need to stop digging. What I do notice is that an argument that you all made on so-called “principle” and “constitutionality” has now been reduced to a “negotiating position”.
What happened to that call for strict adherence to conservative values? Willing to negotiate them away for a filibuster?