(From the diaries -- Plutonium Page)Well, sort of. He doesn't actually accuse the sanctimonious, holier-than-thou Senator from Utah of breaking the 9th Commandment in saying that the Democrats use of the filibuster to block judicial nominations is unprecedented, but he comes pretty darned close. Dean is of course referencing the 1968 nomination of Associate Justice Abe Fortas to become Chief Justice. Says Dean of Hatch, "he has either been grossly misinformed as to what occurred then, or is intentionally lying about it." How does Dean know this?
I should know: I was there when the history he is trying to rewrite was made. And not only does this very use of the filibuster have precedent, but that precedent was made by Republicans. I know this for a certainty based on information I received directly from the Senate Republican caucus at the time.
More below.
Dean details Hatch's "false statements":
On March 10, Senator Hatch told his colleagues on the Senate floor that "[b]efore 2003," when the Democrats began using the filibuster, "only one judicial nomination on which cloture was not invoked was not confirmed." Put more simply, this means that before 2003, only one nomination was defeated by filibuster. That's correct - as far as it goes. But what Hatch said next, was not.
Hatch continued: "Opposition to cloture on the controversial 1968 nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice was evenly bipartisan and showed that the nominee lacked clear majority support." This, as the record set forth below shows, is misleading, as well as conjecture.
Hatch says his source for this information was former Michigan Senator Robert Griffin, who led the Republican attack against Fortas. Hatch said that Griffin "personally told me that there never was an intention to use the filibuster to defeat the Fortas nomination." (Emphasis added.)
That statement is absurd. Either Senator Hatch did not hear Senator Griffin correctly, or Senator Griffin has forgotten the events of 1968. A filibuster actually did defeat the Fortas nomination; no one can deny that. Was it all a colossal misunderstanding? Of course not.
On April 27, speaking on the Senate floor, Senator Hatch repeated his error. He said, "Some have said that the Abe Fortas nomination for Chief Justice was filibustered. Hardly. I thought it was, too, until I was corrected by the man who led the fight against Abe Fortas, Senator Robert Griffin of Michigan."
Hatch then asserted that the former Senator told him, and the Senate Republican caucus, "that there never was a real filibuster because a majority would have beaten Justice Fortas outright." (Emphasis added.)
Dean then provides 18 paragraphs of research, a chronological rundown of New York Times stories the describe the unfolding drama of the Fortas nomination concluding with this:
The Editorial Page of the New York Times weighed in on September 27 on the filibuster issue. It observed that "[b]ehind the developing filibuster are strong undertones of politics, spitefulness and racism. . . . The real leaders of the filibuster are those old guard Southerners, Senator Eastland of Mississippi and Senator Thurmond of South Carolina. . . . These Southern bigots must be pleased indeed that the more respected Senators are serving as their cats'-paw in the case against Mr. Fortas."
On October 1, 1968 the Senate voted on Mansfield's motion to cut off debate on whether or not to take up the nomination. And on October 2, the Times reported that the "Senate refused by a wide margin today to stop the filibuster.... The action appeared to doom the nomination. The vote was 45 to 43 ... -- 14 votes short of the two-thirds margin necessary to end the filibuster."
The rest, as they say, is history.
Just to pound the nails into the Lying Hatch Coffin for good, Dean conducts a quick survey of the historical literature, every source confirming that the Fortas' nomination was defeated by a Republican filibuster. His coup de grace, in my opinion:
Senator Hatch should have checked the Senate's own official history. According to the Secretary of the Senate, who vouches for this website, entitled
October 1, 1968: Filibuster Derails Supreme Court Appointment, it was very much a filibuster that defeated Fortas: "On October 1, 1968," the website notes, "the Senate failed to invoke cloture. [President] Johnson then withdrew the nomination, privately observing that if he had another term, 'The Fortas appointment would have been different.'"
I used to have a modicum of respect for Orrin Hatch. He worked well with my former boss, then a Democrat in the House of Representatives, on a number of children's health and education measures. I used to think that, despite his conservative politics, he was an honorable man.
Cross-posted at unbossed.