Senate Republicans are expected to filibuster to try to prevent a vote
on the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Even with
their thin numbers (there are only 40 GOP senators), Senate Republicans
are under intense pressure from their base to oppose Sotomayor under
any and all circumstances.
There have been judicial filibusters before, with Democrats trying to
use the parliamentary procedure in 2005 to keep some of George W.
Bush's more conservative nominations from being confirmed. During that
controversy, Republicans denounced the notion that a presidential
nomination might not get an up-or-down vote and threatened the "nuclear
option" if Democrats persisted with their attempts to filibuster.
Since many of those same Republicans are being asked by party activists to vote for the same thing they criticized four years ago, let's go back and look at some of their public statements on the concept of filibustering a judicial nomination (thanks to Media Matters for compiling these quotations) -
"It is important for each judicial nominee to have his or her qualifications examined, undergo thorough background checks and be asked tough questions. But it is also important that after a time of extensive debate, there must also be a time for a decision . . . Like many Americans, we believe that our nation's judicial system should be put above partisan politics and under no circumstances should either party obstruct the courts from doing their important work. In this particular case, the Senate must give each nominee a fair, up-or-down vote to fulfill its constitutional duty." (A joint statement from Georgia Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, 5/24/05)
"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." (Missouri Sen. Kit Bond, 5/19/05)
"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." (Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, 5/24/05)
"The United States Senate faces an unprecedented crisis brought on by the minority party. Judges who have been nominated by the President of the United States to the federal bench have been held up by a filibuster and cannot get a fair up-or-down vote. . . . I support a change in the rules of the Senate to allow for an up-or-down vote on judicial nominations. We must not let the minority party circumvent the Constitution, and take away the right of the President to have his judicial nominees voted on by a simple up-or-down vote." (Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning, 5/29/05)
"Each president's nominees would be treated exactly the same and not dependent on who happens to take up the decision to block, in a partisan fashion, a bipartisan majority from being able to cast an up-or-down vote."(Texas Sen. John Cornyn, 5/24/05)
"Filibustering of judicial nominations is an unprecedented intrusion into the longstanding practice of the Senate's approval of judges. We have a constitutional obligation of advise and consent when it comes to judicial nominees. While there has always been debate about nominees, the filibuster has never been used in partisan fashion to block an up-or-down vote on someone who has the support of a majority of the Senate." (Nevada Sen. John Ensign, 5/11/05)
"'There never was a filibuster of a majority-supported judicial nominee until a couple of years ago... It is inconsistent with the Constitution and with the Framers' intent as documented in the Federalist Papers and the notes of James Madison." (New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, 5/19/2005)
"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. [Miguel] 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." (Oklahoma Sen. Sen. James Inhofe, 3/11/03)
"Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate. That's the way we need to operate." (Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, 5/23/05)
"As a U.S. Senator, I believe that the review of judicial nominations is one of the most important responsibilities of the Senate, and I firmly believe that each of the President's nominees should be afforded a straight up-or-down vote. I do not think that any of us want to operate in an environment where federal judicial nominees must receive 60 votes in order to be confirmed." (Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, 4/15/2005)
Since many of those same Republicans are being asked by party activists to vote for the same thing they criticized four years ago, let's go back and look at some of their public statements on the concept of filibustering a judicial nomination (thanks to Media Matters for compiling these quotations) -
"It is important for each judicial nominee to have his or her qualifications examined, undergo thorough background checks and be asked tough questions. But it is also important that after a time of extensive debate, there must also be a time for a decision . . . Like many Americans, we believe that our nation's judicial system should be put above partisan politics and under no circumstances should either party obstruct the courts from doing their important work. In this particular case, the Senate must give each nominee a fair, up-or-down vote to fulfill its constitutional duty." (A joint statement from Georgia Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, 5/24/05)
"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." (Missouri Sen. Kit Bond, 5/19/05)
"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." (Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, 5/24/05)
"The United States Senate faces an unprecedented crisis brought on by the minority party. Judges who have been nominated by the President of the United States to the federal bench have been held up by a filibuster and cannot get a fair up-or-down vote. . . . I support a change in the rules of the Senate to allow for an up-or-down vote on judicial nominations. We must not let the minority party circumvent the Constitution, and take away the right of the President to have his judicial nominees voted on by a simple up-or-down vote." (Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning, 5/29/05)
"Each president's nominees would be treated exactly the same and not dependent on who happens to take up the decision to block, in a partisan fashion, a bipartisan majority from being able to cast an up-or-down vote."(Texas Sen. John Cornyn, 5/24/05)
"Filibustering of judicial nominations is an unprecedented intrusion into the longstanding practice of the Senate's approval of judges. We have a constitutional obligation of advise and consent when it comes to judicial nominees. While there has always been debate about nominees, the filibuster has never been used in partisan fashion to block an up-or-down vote on someone who has the support of a majority of the Senate." (Nevada Sen. John Ensign, 5/11/05)
"'There never was a filibuster of a majority-supported judicial nominee until a couple of years ago... It is inconsistent with the Constitution and with the Framers' intent as documented in the Federalist Papers and the notes of James Madison." (New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, 5/19/2005)
"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. [Miguel] 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." (Oklahoma Sen. Sen. James Inhofe, 3/11/03)
"Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate. That's the way we need to operate." (Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, 5/23/05)
"As a U.S. Senator, I believe that the review of judicial nominations is one of the most important responsibilities of the Senate, and I firmly believe that each of the President's nominees should be afforded a straight up-or-down vote. I do not think that any of us want to operate in an environment where federal judicial nominees must receive 60 votes in order to be confirmed." (Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, 4/15/2005)
Leave a comment