"Arbitrary. The filibuster itself has a long history. All you've done is identify a current use of it, which by definition is unprecendted."
Facts are such pesky things, aren't they?
***
First, never in the history of the Senate had a judicial nominee with majority support been denied an up-or-down vote until two years ago.
In the last Congress, the President submitted 34 appeals court nominees to the Senate. A minority of senators denied ten of those nominees -- and threatened to deny another six -- up-or-down votes.
Message 21274930
In the last Congress, the president submitted 34 appeals court nominees to the Senate. A minority of senators blocked up-or-down votes to 10 of those nominees and threatened to deny votes to another six. This was unprecedented in 214 years of Senate history. Now, in the new Congress, the same minority of senators says it will continue its campaign of judicial obstruction. And, even worse, if they don't get their way, they threaten to shut down the Senate and obstruct government itself.
Message 21276767
One of the most significant travesties of the judicial confirmation war that the Democrats launched after losing the Senate majority in 2003 has been the damage done to the reputations of those jurists nominated to the federal appellate bench by George Bush. Ten of the thirty-four nominations sent to the Senate by Bush have not only been blocked by the minority through the unprecedented use of the filibuster, but they have been vilified by Democrats as "Neanderthals" (Ted Kennedy), "extremists", "theocrats", and worse. Three of these nominees have declined to pursue their nominations, effectively curtailing their careers in public service, in order to restore their reputations and spare their families any further degradation at the hands of rabid Democrats insistent on pursuing strategies of personal destruction. Seven have valiantly decided to fight for their rightful place on the appellate bench.
Message 21279532
Also like the filibuster--which was never intended to block judicial nominees from getting a floor vote--the hold is being abused by a willful minority of Senators. This being a Republican Administration, Democrats in particular are using it now to hamstring or stop its ability to govern. There's no formal list of holds, but the current batch may well be unprecedented in both in number and degree.
Message 21277961
The Post has decided essentially to ignore the mistreatment of Bush's nominees on the theory that both parties do this. Through this dodge, it can direct its outrage exclusively at the Republican reaction to the Democratic tactics. In reality, as Rick Santorum points out in today's Post, the Republicans have never killed any court of appeals nominee through a filibuster. In addition, the number of nominees the Democrats have killed through filibusters or the threat thereof (16 of 52) is unprecedented. Indeed, Bush has had a smaller percentage of appeals court nominees approved than any present in memory.
Message 21239445
The unprecedented Democratic plan to filibuster judicial nominations that do not meet liberal specifications has exceeded all expectations. None of 10 filibustered Bush appellate court nominees has been confirmed, and another six are all designated filibuster victims. This is intended to have a chilling effect on Bush in filling Supreme Court vacancies.
Message 20874688
Sen. Harry Reid and his Democratic comrades brought the issue of judicial nominees to the forefront of our business in the Senate last week. The Democrats are now threatening to slow or even stop Senate business if Republicans go ahead with our plans to end the unprecedented obstruction of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees.
Message 21159283
Senate Democrats, taking their cue from liberal interest groups, have responded by subverting the democratic process, using the filibuster to impose an unprecedented supermajority requirement on the confirmation of judges.
Message 21296690 |
