Bill Frist's Op/Ed in the Chicago Tribune on November 9 was a clear and succinct distillation of the Republicans' "principled" "stand" on the proposition of minority party Senators engaging in a filibuster of a judicial nominee. "Up or Down!" they cry. "Every judicial nominee is entitled to an up or down vote from the full Senate!" Those who would engage in the filibustering of a judicial nominee "mock the Senate's rules in the name of partisan advantage" and "abus[e] Senate rules to impede the judicial nomination process," quoth Senator Frist, who's clearly feeling saucy, in his piece.
It's really a very "simple" proposition, he says: "The filibuster [which Frist helpfully defines for the reader as `a refusal to end debate and vote'] has no place in the judicial nominating process." Yep, to Frist and his Republican cohorts, it's clear as a bell.
To recap: As of November 9, 2005, SENATOR BILL FRIST OF Tennessee believes, in his heart of hearts, that THE FILIBUSTER HAS NO PLACE IN THE JUDICIAL NOMINATING PROCESS. And if Bill Frist, an expert on political history, truly believes that, he must be right, right? I mean, we wouldn't doubt him as an expert medical diagnostician seeing as how he's an physician, right?
But wait ...
Once upon a time, it was 1996 and Bill Clinton nominated Judge Richard Paez to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but the right wing of the Republican party in the Senate didn't allow an "Up or Down!" vote on Judge Paez that year. Or the next ... or the next ... or the next.
Then it was 2000 (let's see, 2000 minus 1996 equals 4). Four years later and still some of these most conservative Republicans continued to filibuster, "refus[ing] to end debate and vote."
On March 8, 2000, the full Senate voted on whether or not to invoke cloture, effectively ending the filibuster so that the President could get an "Up or Down!" vote as to his judicial nominee. The Senate overwhelmingly voted (85-14 with one abstention) to "end debate and vote" on whether Judge Paez could be a U.S. Circuit Court Judge (they voted that he could, by the way).
Perusing the list of the 14 "nay" voters in the Senate - that is, those whose votes indicated their "refusal to end debate and vote" - one encounters the usual kookoo right-wing suspects: Jesse Helms (R- N.C.); Brownback (R- Kansas); Inhofe (R- Oklahoma); Allard (R- Colorado); and - LO! Who's this? FRIST (R- TENNESSEE)?
Hazza-whaaaaa?
That most assuredly must be a typo. No? Am I to believe that Bill Frist voted, in his own words, to "mock the Senate's rules in the name of partisan advantage" and "abus[e] Senate rules to impede the judicial nomination process"?
But I don't understand. "Doctor" Frist now sounds so very confident and committed - even strident - in his damnation of the filibuster as a tool in the judicial nomination process. Just look again at his Op/Ed piece of November 9, 2005, in which he states "I will not negotiate about the Senate's constitutional duty to vote on the president's judicial nominees."
Was he shirking his self-described "constitutional duty" from 1996-2000 when he "refus[ed] to end debate and vote" on President Clinton's judicial nominee? Could it be that it was he, "Doctor" Frist - a REPUBLICAN, who "mocked" and "abused Senate rules"?
My mind cannot fathom it. If I can't trust the Republicans to adhere to a coherent, unchanging political ethic, then what CAN I believe in?
I'll just be over here on the couch for the next little bit, being disillusioned.
(cross-posted at my site)