Republican Senators dishonor themselves

The BBQ Pit
1

Some history:

George W. Bush insisted on packing the Federal Judiciary with right-wing judges. Many of these appointees were so blatantly incompetent (their only “virtue” being extremely reactionary views) that Democrat Senators finally pushed back, and threatened to filibuster against the most egregious nominees.

In a great show of patriotic sacrifice, several Republican Senators denounced such filibusters and solemnly pledged to renounce their own right to filibuster against such appointments, and in 2005 an “historic bipartisan agreement” was reached. Here are some of the words Republicans used to underscore their sincerity:

From the Congressional Record, 19 May 2005:

[QUOTE=Johnny Isakson, Republican Senator for Georgia]
I rise to repeat that I will vote to support a vote, up or down, on every nominee—understanding that, were I in the minority party and the issues reversed, I would take exactly the same position because this document, our Constitution, does not equivocate.
[/QUOTE]

In 2004, Senator Cornyn wrote:

[QUOTE=John Cornyn, Republican Senator for Texas]
The indefinite, needless, and wasteful delay caused by filibusters of judicial nominations distracts the Senate from other important business. And it hurts Americans. It leaves not only would-be judges in limbo, but also thousands of litigants…President Bush has rightly called the situation “a disgrace.”
The current filibusters of judicial nominations are not only unprecedented and wrong, they are also offensive to our nation’s constitutional design.
[/QUOTE]

And more:

[QUOTE=Lindsay Graham, Republican Senator for South Carolina]
I think filibustering judges will destroy the judiciary over time. I think it’s unconstitutional
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Lamar Alexander, Republican Senator for Tennessee]
I would never filibuster any President’s judicial nominee, period. I might vote against them, but I will always see they came to a vote.
[/QUOTE]

Yesterday, all of these Senators did exactly what they condemned, exactly what they promised not to do. They have proved themselves to be contemptible liars of the worst degree.

But I do not come to BBQ Pit to Pit these Republicans. It would make as much sense to condemn shit for its smell, or crocodiles for their bite. Every American who is politically conscious already knew what execrable fraudsters these “Senators” are.

Instead I condemn the Democrat Senators. They had their chance to revise the Rules and failed to do so.

2

Naked politics! In the United States Senate! Why, septimus, be a lamb and fetch the smelling salts, I do believe I feel a case of the vapors coming on.

And the, ahem, Democratic senators didn’t change the rules because one day they might want to filibuster some nominees too.

3

In direct contrast to the current president, whose nominee that provoked this filibuster is a sober centrist with mainstream views.

4

It’s good to see that Dopers acknowledge that the solemn word of a Republican Senator is worth no more than the horse shit it would take to shut the bastard’s heinous mouth shut.

5

Holy crap! Politicians who are playing politics with judicial nominees who are themselves political animals with a political and social agenda of their own.

Well I am shocked and outraged dammit.

6

If it could be shown that Harry Reid and Dick Durbin shared this naivete, I will wholeheartedly join you in pitting the Senate Majority Leadership.

7

What function does the word “Republican” serve in this sentence? Is there some sort of distinction you’re making?

8

Well, how many Democrats have put into the record that they would never filibuster a judicial nominee?

9

Why don’t we just cut to the chase – let’s assume I provided a whole bunch of quotes from dem senators about how judicial filibusters are awful and terrible, and then cites for them doing precisely that when they were in the minority. We both know they exist, right?

Then we’ll assume you told me how no, this time is like totally different from the last six flip-flops both parties have made on this issue because (insert totally massive distinction here). We both know you have one, right?

And then I said “Holy shit, you’ve convinced me! It’s only Republicans that are lying sacks who talk sanctimoniously about principle and then reverse themselves when in the opposite situation; Democratic politicians are *totally *different!”

Cause that’s totally what we’ll both think after that exchange. Thanks so much for setting me straight.

10

Pit the fucking American public. Because this shit (of various stripes and styles) works on them every goddamn time. We have met the dolt, and he is us.

11

Actually, I was referring to the quotes in the OP, but if you want to pretend the Republicans aren’t being completely two-faced about this, there’s nothing I can do to stop you.

12

I’m perplexed, frankly, that anyone might think otherwise.

13

Just to be clear: You provided a link probably intended to suggest that Obama’s nominee was as objectionable to the right as Bush’s were to the left.

But you seemed to miss that the Democrats had agreed to those Bush nominations, with the quid pro quo that Repubs agree to reciprocate.

Have today’s Demo Senators dishonored themselves in a similar despicable and heinous fashion? I do not know; am sincerely curious about it; and would be happy to consider any evidence. I am no fan of today’s Demo Party. But the statement you make

will be treated by me as ignorant and contemptible prattle until you actually provide a few … (gasp) … real quotes.

14

:rolleyes:

Of course they’re being two-faced about it. And the dems were two-faced about it when they (including Senator Obama) were filibustering Bush’s nominees despite having condemned the practice – and the pubs before them, and the dems before them, and so on and so on. Which is why people are amused that the OP (and apparently you) are so shocked. For good or for ill, this is the way both sides do it, and have for years now.

The check’s not in the mail; he’s not gonna pull out; and politicians in both parties are not taking their stands based on deeply-held convictions about proper legislative procedure.

15

“Vote Them Up, Vote Them Down.” “But I think they have given the President of the United States the benefit of the doubt, and if the person is otherwise qualified, he or she gets the vote. … That is what the Constitution speaks of in our advise and consent capacity. That is what these good and decent people have a right to expect. That is what our oath of office should compel Members to do to vote for or against. … Vote them up, vote them down.” (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 9/21/99, p. S11102)

We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote." (Sen. Edward Kennedy, Congressional Record, 2/3/98, p. S295)

“The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue before us, not the qualifications of judges, which we can always debate. The problem is it takes so long for us to debate those qualifications. It is an example of Government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees.” (Sen. Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, 3/7/00, p. S1211)

There’s three. And yes, all three of them later voted to filibuster Bush nominees.

Of course, for some reason, right around 2005, the Democrats, including Senator Obama, were very vocal about how the filibuster is an essential, deeply important protection that must be kept in place. And now they’re back to opposing it. Not sure why that is…

16

Which nominees did Leahy, Schumer and Kennedy vote to filibuster?

17

All voted to filibuster Alito and Estrada; you can look up the rest.

18

That link only mentions Leahy, unless I’m missing something. But I’ll give you him.

19

Google isn’t that hard, really.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-22563043.html

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/06/01/judicial-filibusters-and-partisan-hypocrisy/

20

nm