In early March of 2009 41 Senate Republicans sent President Obama a letter threatening filibuster of judicial nominees.
We hope your Administration will consult with us as it considers possible nominations to the federal courts from our states. Regretfully, if we are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states, the Republican Conference will be unable to support moving forward on that nominee.
The Republicans now have 40 Senators, but they are still threatening filibusters. I think we can create enough buzz about their hypocrisy that actually sustaining a filibuster could be very uncomfortable for them - not that they seem to mind that, but it could be helpful to us in winning even more Senate seats in 2010, so why not!
My proposal: Senator Ted Kaufman should use his question time during the Supreme Court nominee hearings to ask the nominee what they think of the Republicans and their position on filibusters in the past.
Senator Kaufman is second to last in seniority on the Senate Judiciary Committee - this will typically put him in line to ask questions of the nominee toward the end of the hearings. Very conveniently, there are many quotes from Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, and the Republican leadership, all discussing how they believe filibusters to be "unconstitutional", an "abuse", etc. Since the Republicans have already stated their full intent to filibuster President Obama's nominee - regardless of who that nominee will be - I believe these statements should be read into the record of the hearings.
These hearings will be televised. They will be discussed on cable and network news programs, in print newspapers (if there are any left at that point), on blogs, Facebook updates, in Tweets, etc. The filibuster will be a big story - Republican hypocrisy should be made a bigger story.
Senator Kaufman isn't running for reelection. He's near the very end of the questioning - which means this could help leave a nice lasting impression of Republican hypocrisy. Arlen Specter is the only person to follow. The Democrats outnumber the Republicans 12 to 7...which means they'll get more questions anyway, so why not! Kaufman has nothing to lose. We have everything to gain!
Media Matters has a very convenient list of quotes here.
Here are the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee in their own words:
Jeff Sessions, Ranking Member, Alabama
"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." [Senate Floor Speech, 5/23/05]
Orrin Hatch, Utah
"All we are asking is the 214-year tradition of the Senate that judicial nominees not be filibustered be followed. That has been the tradition of the Senate up until President Bush became President. All we are asking is that every one of these qualified nominees who have reached the floor receive an up-or-down vote. That is all we are asking." [Senate Floor Speech, 4/27/05]
Chuck Grassley, Iowa
"History has proven the wisdom of having the President place judges with the support of the majority of the Senate. That process ensures balance on the court between judges placed by Republican Presidents and those placed by Democrat Presidents. The current obstruction led by Senate Democratic leaders threatens that balance. It's time to make sure all judges receive a fair vote on the Senate floor." [Grassley.Senate.gov, "Talking Judges to Death," 5/8/05]
(I wrote about Grassley's hypocrisy here and here.)
Jon Kyl, Arizona
"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." [NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, "Judicial Wars," 4/25/05]
(Are Hatch and Kyl getting talking point instruction from the same memo?)
Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
Gang of 14 member had this to say about filibustering judicial nominees:
"Based on what we've done in the past with Brown, Pryor and Owen," Graham said, "ideological attacks are not an 'extraordinary circumstance.' To me, it would have to be a character problem, an ethics problem, some allegation about the qualifications of the person, not an ideological bent." Link.
John Cornyn, Texas
"I believe, about the process of reestablishing the precedent of majority rule that had prevailed for 214 years in the Senate, that would say any President's nominees, whether they be Republican or Democrat, if they have the support of a majority of the Senate, will get an up-or-down vote in the Senate. Senators who believe these nominees should be confirmed can vote for them and those who believe they should not be confirmed can vote against them." [Senate Floor Speech, 5/24/05]
Tom Coburn, Oklahoma
"For the first 214 years of our nation's history, the president has been able to nominate judges and expect that those nominees would receive the courtesy of a straight up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. During this time, the Senate operated within its Constitutional 'advice and consent' role. The president would nominate judges of his choice with advice from the Senate. The Senate would then either consent and confirm that nominee by a majority vote or reject that nominee...In 2003, however, obstructionist senators decided the system that was designed by our founders and practiced for 214 years was no longer fair. If the minority didn't like the judicial philosophy of one of President Bush's nominees they concluded it was their right to deny them the courtesy of an up or down vote through a filibuster. Instead of needing 51 votes to be confirmed, the minority unilaterally declared that judges who failed their liberal litmus test would need 60 votes to break their filibuster. Never before in American history has a judicial nominee with clear majority support been denied an up-or-down vote." [Coburn.Senate.gov, "President Bush's Nominees Deserve a Vote," 5/11/05]
Huh - they all use this same "we've never had this happen in all of our history" line - but that's just not true:
In 1968, Republicans led a filibuster against Lyndon Johnson's nomination of Abe Fortas as chief justice. And that isn't the only Republican attempt to filibuster a judicial nominee in recent history. During the Clinton years, the Congressional Research Service says, Democrats were forced to bring cloture motions on six judicial nominees. While the existence of a cloture motion doesn't always mean that a filibuster is in effect, in at least some instances it has meant just that: In 2000, Frist himself voted to support a filibuster against Richard Paez, Clinton's nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Link.
Media Matters has more "filibuster falsehoods" from the wayback machine (2005):
The Republican-controlled Senate blocked approximately 60 Clinton nominees through other means. This included strict enforcement under Clinton of the "blue slip" policy, which at the time allowed a senator from a nominee's home state to block a nominee simply by failing to turn in the blue-colored approval papers required for the nomination process. While Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) strictly adhered to the "blue slip" policy to allow Republicans to block Clinton nominees, he relaxed the policy nearly to the point of elimination in his efforts to push through Bush's nominees.
For example, Hatch held committee votes on the nominations of 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Carolyn B. Kuhl over the objections of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), as well as four 6th Circuit nominees over their home state senators' objections.
Senator Grassley says this is all the fault of Democrats (props to my husband for his awesome questioning of the hypocrite):
I'm going to call Senator Kaufman's office and propose this idea. If you think it's a good one - call and make the same suggestion! I want to see Republican hypocrisy exposed on TV and in the Senate record. Let's make sure the majority of Americans know how hypocritical the party of "NoNo" really is.
Here are tonight's Top Comments:
From MinistryOfTruth:
craigkg has some fun with utf-8.
LaughingPlanet has a comment about Steve Singiser's new gig as a CE.
From malharden:
Detroit Mark contextualizes the merits and convictions of the GOP's various arguments against Nancy Pelosi, and perhaps adds a subtle commentary on John Boehner's wardrobe.
From luckylizard:
This one just struck me as a giggler. It was posted in the "Fox Grammar Police" diary. The diary title was strange enough, but the comment, by dryfoo, is priceless.
From wide eyed lib:
In this morning’s Cheers and Jeers, this comment by Khan David is hysterical, but to get the joke, you have to start reading here.
Top Mojo was collected by brillig! Tip her multiple times, please!!
Top 30 Comments excluding search-identifiable tip jars, first comments and C&J:
1) it's not news by bob fertik — 237
2) An interesting aside by therealcervantes — 160
3) Here's an interesting take by Jeff Y — 140
4) I'm sorry for your loss Keith by LeftHandedMan — 138
5) And believe me, we cite that case in by Bartimaeus Blue — 129
6) A Terrorist Force: by leonard145b — 127
7) i will admit something shameful by lizard people — 109
8) Rant on! by ulookarmless — 109
9) Well... by The BBQ Chicken Madness — 93
10) THE PROBLEM IS PEOPLE JUST DON'T CARE by MinistryOfTruth — 91
11) The missing piece in the narrative puzzle: by kingubu — 90
12) Obama has to stop this Sh1t by Gwen12 — 88
13) from the NYT: by SuperBowlXX — 80
14) Sen. Hendren by OdinsEye2k — 77
15) 43 was above the law, and his VP didn't recognize by RFK Lives — 76
16) George Walker Bush by radarlady — 75
17) a winger friend by jlynne — 74
18) Emmett Till by Fixed Point Theorem — 73
19) Keith by raptavio — 72
20) How many Iraqi grandfathers by Fixed Point Theorem — 70
21) total bullshit. by MinistryOfTruth — 66
22) Can I just say.... by LeftHandedMan — 66
23) Hai by Debbie in ME — 66
24) It came from by I love OCD — 64
25) OK, whippersnappers! Lemme tell you a by funluvn1 — 63
26) On No Signs, PhotogHog by Keith Olbermann — 63
27) hai loki! by jlms qkw — 63
28) It's funny that by stunzeed — 61
29) I hate to make a Nazi comparison...but... by boofdah — 60
30) Hai from Patches! by blue jersey mom — 60
Top 30 comments with no exclusions:
1) Tips by Keith Olbermann — 640
2) Tips by MinistryOfTruth — 434
3) Tip Jar by Big Tex — 405
4) Tips by Giles Goat Boy — 405
5) what bob said: let's just get it done n/t by blueness — 357
6) tips/pans by Inky99 — 255
7) tip jar (n/t) by bob fertik — 249
8) WIll update and fill out as events warrant by Phoenix Woman — 237
9) it's not news by bob fertik — 237
10) Not news, but bears repeating. by Rayk — 220
11) Unethical criminals by drational — 191
12) An interesting aside by therealcervantes — 160
13) more so than legislation or by clammyc — 156
14) Tips for hopeful speculation. :) by NCrissieB — 148
15) I'm sorry for your loss Keith by LeftHandedMan — 142
16) Tips for telling the truth... by RaulVB — 141
17) Here's an interesting take by Jeff Y — 140
18) critter tips by jlms qkw — 131
19) Keep up the good work Kossaks! by JohnGaramendiCA — 131
20) And believe me, we cite that case in by Bartimaeus Blue — 129
21) TJ - I've got a meeting - I'll check back in a by blueyescryinintherain — 128
22) A Terrorist Force: by leonard145b — 127
23) The smaller outrages in life. by mcjoan — 113
24) Tip Jar/Not a Diary Jar by I love OCD — 112
25) Rant on! by ulookarmless — 110
26) i will admit something shameful by lizard people — 109
27) Well... by The BBQ Chicken Madness — 93
28) THE PROBLEM IS PEOPLE JUST DON'T CARE by MinistryOfTruth — 91
29) The missing piece in the narrative puzzle: by kingubu — 90
30) Obama has to stop this Sh1t by Gwen12 — 88