Media Matters: Democracy Or Hypocrisy - Bring Back The Nuclear Option!

[Hissyspit]

http://mediamattersaction.org/democracyorhypocrisy

Democracy Or Hypocrisy

In 2005, many Republican Senators went so far as to claim the filibuster of judicial nominees was unconstitutional. Now four years later, President Obama's has appointed Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Will Senate Republicans remain consistent in their position or commit one of the most blatant acts of hypocrisy in the 220-year history of the United States Senate?

http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200905010001

In Their Own Words: The Majority's Prerogative

May 01, 2009 10:27 am ET

In 2005, many Republican Senators went so far as to claim the filibuster of judicial nominees was unconstitutional. Now four years later, with President Obama's first Supreme Court appointment looming, will they remain consistent in their position or commit one of the most blatant acts of hypocrisy in the 220-year history of the United States Senate?

SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER (R-TN)

"I am beginning to think it is a train and that there is not much way to avoid a train wreck. The train wreck I am talking about is a threat by the minority to 'shut the Senate down in every way' if the majority adopts rules that will do what the Senate has done for 200 years, which is to vote up or down the President's appellate judicial nominees."

SEN. KIT BOND (R-MO)

"By resorting to filibustering judicial nominees who have the support of a majority of Senators, which began in 2003 by colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they are throwing overboard 214 years of Senate courtesy and tradition...The Constitution of the United States does not contain a word about filibusters. The Federalist Papers do not contain the word 'filibuster.' Rather, the Constitution lays out the standards for confirming judges. It does not require a 60-vote majority for confirmation. It requires a majority vote to confirm members of the Federal judiciary."

SEN. SAM BROWNBACK (R-KS)

"It's important to note that the Constitutional option is still on the table. If one of the president's nominees is filibustered at any point in the future, I will support the Senate leadership's implementation of the Constitutional option. <...> All of the president's nominees-both now and in the future-deserve a fair up or down vote, regardless of whether some members of the Senate feel they can be filibustered based on whatever they define to be extraordinary circumstances."

- snip -

SEN. JAMES INHOFE (R-OK)

"But the Democrats, who cannot muster a majority to oppose him, are seeking, in effect, to change the Constitutional majority-vote requirement. By sustaining this filibuster, they are asserting that 60 votes, not 50, will be required to approve Mr. Estrada. If successful, their effort will amount to a de facto amendment to the Constitution. This outrageous grab for power by the Senate minority is wrong and contrary to our oath to support and defend the Constitution," Inhofe said.

SEN. JOHN KYL (R-AZ)

"For 214 years it has been the tradition of the Senate to approve judicial nominees by a majority vote. Many of our judges and, for example, Clarence Thomas, people might recall, was approved by either fifty-one or fifty-two votes as I recall. It has never been the rule that a candidate for judgeship that had majority support was denied the ability to be confirmed once before the Senate. It has never happened before. So we're not changing the rules in the middle of the game. We're restoring the 214-year tradition of the Senate because in the last two years Democrats have begun to use this filibuster. <...> This is strictly about whether or not a minority of senators is going to prevent the president from being able to name and get confirmed judges that he chooses after he's been elected by the American people. And it's never been the case until the last two years that a minority could dictate to the majority what they could do."

"All we seek is a return to 214 years of tradition in allowing presidential nominees the courtesy of an up-or-down vote... These men and women are great Americans who have devoted their lives to public service, universally regarded for their intelligence and integrity...Calling them names like 'radical' and 'extreme' is a partisan affront not only to them personally but also to the voters who have supported them and organizations like the American Bar Association that have declared them well suited for the bench "

"No. It's not a religious debate at all. I know that some of the media have portrayed it as such. I think that both Democrats and Republicans are talking to all kinds of folks, but I know because Sen. Durbin and I have both discussed this in the Judiciary Committee that neither of us believe that there should be any religious litmus test. This isn't about religion at all. This is strictly about whether or not a minority of senators is going to prevent the president from being able to name and get confirmed judges that he chooses after he's been elected by the American people. And it's never been the case until the last two years that a minority could dictate to the majority what they could do."

"Well, as a member of the bar, it's not my inclination to criticize justices by name or even decisions that they've rendered except on the merits. I don't agree with all the decisions of the Supreme Court. But it is wrong to believe that because people of faith happen to disagree with pronouncements of the Supreme Court and choose to call some of those decisions arrogant to therefore suggest that they don't have a part to play in the national debate. Again, let's not get focused on that issue. It has nothing to do with the rules of the Senate and changing 214 years of tradition here in the United States Senate. That's following a tangent that's really not relevant to the debate that we're going to be focused on here."

"Just quickly respond to one point here: There has never been a successful filibuster of a nominee that had majority support in the history of the United States Senate. The incident that was mentioned by Sen. Durbin was a situation in which Trent Lott - the then majority leader - worked with Tom Daschle the then minority leader to be sure that two controversial choices of President Clinton got a vote up or down on the Senate floor. And we voted to allow them to have a vote. Now I voted for one of the candidates and I voted against one of the candidates. That's what we ought to allow here is an up or down vote. But we didn't stop those candidates from being voted on. They're sitting on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals right now."

Gwen Ifill (PBS): "Well, let's talk about what Sen. Durbin just outlined in which the Democrats would allow debate only on the issues which they cared about and they would basically close off debate on anything else. What do you think about that approach?" Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ): "Well, I don't think it's productive obviously. And it kind of reminds me of the schoolyard bully. When the umpire makes a call against him, he picks up his ball and goes away. I don't think the American people will really appreciate that. <...> But what my colleague is talking about is using among other things the legislative filibuster. That's not going to go away. Senators want their right to filibuster. And they'll have it. But what would occur as a result of the question that will be asked to the presiding officer in this debate is basically, is it the tradition of the Senate to have an up or down vote to give these nominees an up or down vote with the majority vote prevailing or is the last two years the real precedent of the Senate to require 60 votes? And I think that the presiding officer will say no the tradition of the Senate has been that a majority vote prevails."

Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ): "Well, I'll tell you what is shutting down the judiciary is not filling vacancies. We have according to the commission on the courts several emergency judicial emergencies, situations in which we need to put judges in to vacant positions. They're not -- we're not being able to act on them. It really is true that justice delayed is justice denied. So we need to give these judges an up or down vote. That's all we're asking for, and if some of my colleagues think that they're too conservative or in some other way unqualified then vote against them." Gwen Ifill (PBS): "And should there be legislative oversight over individual judicial decisions?" Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ): "I don't think the Constitution allows us judicial oversight over individual decisions. Our authority under the Constitution is to define the jurisdiction of certain of the courts. That's really the only thing I think that constitutionally we can do. Now, I mean obviously we could change federal laws that the court has made pronouncements on."

- snip -

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL)

"Since the founding of the Republic, we have understood that there was a two-thirds supermajority for ratification and advice and consent on treaties and a majority vote for judges. That is what we have done. That is what we have always done. But there was a conscious decision on behalf of the leadership, unfortunately, of the Democratic Party in the last Congress to systematically filibuster some of the best nominees ever submitted to the Senate. It has been very painful."

"This past election in large part hinged, as George Allen said, on a debate over the judiciary and whether or not obstruction was justified. I think the American people sent a clear message and I believe it's time for this Senate to make sure that judges get an up-or-down vote."

MORE INCLUDING VIDEO AT ORIGINAL LINK