This is a follow-up to my diary, McConnell: "perfectly legitimate" for POTUS to alter ideological direction of SCOTUS. For that post I dug up some of Mitch’s views dating back to 1970 that show he apparently once had some more reasonable views about Supreme Court nominees.
Fast-forward 31 years, to Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearings on The Judicial Nomination and Confirmation Process.
Excerpts of McConnell’s remarks follow.
“The advice and consent powers of the Senate are a very important part of every Senator's duty and should be taken very seriously.”
“My view then and my view now is that the President won the election, no matter what the margin, and is entitled for the most part to tilt the judiciary in the direction that he feels appropriate.”
Sounds very fair-minded, but of course there was a Republican president in both 1970 and 2001.
“Over the years, people from time to time have objected to judicial nominees on the ground that their legal views were extreme. But until now, they have saved ‘Borking’ for an unlucky few. Until now, they have not tried to convert the usage of ‘Borking’ from an exception to the rule itself.”
In the hearings, McConnell accused the Democrats on the committee of “trying to establish a new litmus test” for Senate confirmation of Federal Court nominees.
“My colleagues, if we go down this road, we will have a meltdown in our nomination process. It will be mutually assured destruction that will cripple the federal judiciary. It is naive to think that such a dramatic escalation in partisanship will not, by necessity, be visited upon the next Democrat to occupy the White House. We therefore cannot allow “advise and consent” to become ‘demand and dictate.’ The Constitution does not provide for 100--or even 51—co-Presidents.”
There it is, plain as day: We “cannot allow ‘advise and consent’ to become ‘demand and dictate.’ ”
“Voting for nominees of another philosophical stripe can be painful, but both sides have always done it… For eight long years I voted to confirm most of President Clinton's nominees, although there is no way I would have nominated most of these people if I were President because I disagreed with their judicial philosophy, sometimes vigorously so. But I did not wage some sort of jihad to stop them because, quite frankly, it was not appropriate for me to do so.”
Try telling that to the GOP now.
“Mr. Chairman, I think you get my drift. These are hearings that are heading us in entirely the wrong direction. As Senator Thompson pointed out a while ago, one day you will have the White House again and we will have the Senate again, and we are drifting off in a direction that will make it impossible to confirm judges to the Federal courts.”
Apparently we’ve stopped drifting and have arrived.
“I think that is not what the Constitution expected. I certainly don't think it is what the American people want us to do.”
But now you do. Hmmm… what’s changed?