# What's the REAL issue with the Senate's judicial confirmation process? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 26, 2005, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-real-issue-with-the-senates-judicial-confirmation-process/301179 "2005-04-26T16:24:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2005, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-real-issue-with-the-senates-judicial-confirmation-process/301179/81 "2005-04-30T12:13:23Z")
> [@Eyer8](#): > > SCARY!!! :eek: > > What is the percentage of judges in the appeals court and the Supreme court that were appointed by Republicans? Is this percentage the same as the percentage of judges that could be considered conservative? > (This is fun!) Don’t know off the top of my head. Nor does it matter. Anything less than 100% conservative judges is short of the ideal. Oh, all right - I’ll compromise and say 80%. > [@Eyer8](#): > > If the current conservative majority is unhappy with their own judges and they want to get judges further to the right, I weep for our future. I say this as someone who is fairly conservative with regards to Constitutional law. Mostly because it sounds like the Republicans want judges that interpret cases according to the Bible, not the Constitution, case law, or common law. I might be mistaken on this, but that is what it looks like to me. In my case at least, you are mistaken. I am talking primarily about strict constructionism - judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written, and don’t make up new rights because they think they should be there. As I recall, we’ve thrashed that one out on the boards once or twice before. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2005, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-real-issue-with-the-senates-judicial-confirmation-process/301179/82 "2005-04-30T12:41:47Z")
Current article on ‘strict constructionism.’ [Edward Lazarus, FindLaw.](http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20050428.html) > [@](#): > > At the end of the day, then, there is not – and never will be – a “values-free” way to interpret the Constitution. (And, for that matter, why should there be? Should - or could – a document partly designed to ensure justice be interpreted entirely without reference to values and morality?) Nor will there ever be a panacea for the abuse of judicial power. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2005, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-real-issue-with-the-senates-judicial-confirmation-process/301179/83 "2005-04-30T17:07:24Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > In my case at least, you are mistaken. I am talking primarily about strict constructionism - judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written, and don’t make up new rights because they think they should be there. And you know what, I don’t really have too much of a problem with strict constructionism. I understand the argument and I think it is a valid one (though maybe not always the best one). Unfortunately, that is not what we are talking about. Looking at **BrainGlutton** ’s links earlier in the thread it appears that 4 of the 7 judges being opposed by Democrats are religious, ultra right-wing, judicial activists. The other 3 are being opposed for what appear to be purely partisan reasons. And to answer my own questions, 10 of the 13 appeals courts have majority Republican appointees and 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans. Even with this overwhelming majority, there is an attack on the courts that goes well beyond the appointment of strict constructionists and more toward the goal of making the judiciary an arm of the republican party or (more likely) the religious right. > [@](#): > > As I recall, we’ve thrashed that one out on the boards once or twice before. Yes we have… ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2005, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-real-issue-with-the-senates-judicial-confirmation-process/301179/84 "2005-04-30T18:39:21Z")
> [@Eyer8](#): > > Looking at **BrainGlutton** ’s links earlier in the thread it appears that 4 of the 7 judges being opposed by Democrats are religious, ultra right-wing, judicial activists. The other 3 are being opposed for what appear to be purely partisan reasons. You are correct about the partisan motives of the last three, but it seems at least as likely that “religious, ultra right-wing” is Democratic short hand for “has the temerity to question the great Goddess Abortion”. From **BG** ’s post (with my bolding): > [@](#): > > According to Newsday – [http://www.newsday.com/news/politic...itics-headlines:](http://www.newsday.com/news/politic...itics-headlines:) > > > [@](#): > > > > - Priscilla Owen, for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, waiting on Senate vote. Democrats say the Texas Supreme Court justice is an ultraconservative activist and fault her rulings against consumers, working people and\*\* minors who want abortions\*\*. She was one of Bush’s first judicial nominees after he won the White House. > > > > - William H. Pryor Jr., for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. Bush gave the former Alabama attorney general a temporary recess appointment in 2004 and renominated him for a lifetime seat on the court. Awaiting action by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Democratic senators have objected to his comments and **writings on abortion** and homosexuality, which included a Supreme Court brief in a Texas sodomy case that likened homosexual acts to “prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography and even incest and pedophilia.” > > > > - Janice Rogers Brown, for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Approved by the Judiciary Committee, awaiting vote by full Senate. Democrats say the California Supreme Court justice is a conservative judicial activist who ignores the law in favor of her own political views. They cite here support for limits on **abortion rights** and corporate liability and her opposition to affirmative action. > > > > - William G. Myers III, for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Approved by the Judiciary Committee, awaiting vote by full Senate. Democrats say the former Interior Department solicitor has an anti-environment agenda and opposed environmental protections while at Interior and as a private lawyer and lobbyist for cattle and mining interests. > > > > - Henry Saad, for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. Renominated. Democratic Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan have said they would not approve new nominations to the 6th Circuit **because President Clinton’s nominees to that court were never given a confirmation hearing by the Republican-controlled Senate**. Levin and Stabenow want Bush to renominate Clinton’s 6th Circuit Court nominees. > > > > - Richard Griffin, for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. Renominated. Opposed by Levin and Stabenow **because Clinton’s nominees to that court were never given a confirmation hearing by Republicans**. > > > > - David McKeague, for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. Opposed by Levin and Stabenow **because Clinton’s nominees to that court never got a confirmation hearing by Republicans**. So I would say that partisan reasons - meaning both “payback time” and “anyone who doesn’t support abortion right 100% under any circumstances no matter what is a far-right extremist woman-hating blah blah blah” - account for most if not all the resistance to the current crop of nominees. Incidentally, you mentioned that Democrats opposed four of the seven because they are religious. The Democrats might want to rephrase their opposition to those four. [Article VI, Clause 3, you know.](http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html) 😉 Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2005, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-real-issue-with-the-senates-judicial-confirmation-process/301179/85 "2005-04-30T22:29:30Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You are correct about the partisan motives of the last three, but it seems at least as likely that “religious, ultra right-wing” is Democratic short hand for “has the temerity to question the great Goddess Abortion”. Bah. I object to your terminology. I don’t think there are any Democrats, liberals or even anarchists who would come close to treating abortion as divine. Abortion is a dirty fact of life and I don’t think there is anyone that celebrates or reveres it. I have always found it interesting that Republicans, who say they believe in small government, limited taxes, personal responsiblity, and basically that government has no businees in a persons (or coporations) life, also believe that they can take this choice away from women, or in the Shiavo case, away from a spouse. They also seem to be the party of decency standards, desiring to control what individuals purchase from services like satelite radio and cable TV (I will produce cites if desired). The only freedoms Republicans _seem_ to stand for these days are the freedom to own guns and the _right_ to pray in schools or have monuments to the 10 commandments in our courts. Am I mistaken on this? Regardless, I can use bold face as well as you: > [@Newsday](#): > > \*Priscilla Owen, for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, waiting on Senate vote. Democrats say the Texas Supreme Court justice is an **ultraconservative activist and fault her rulings against consumers, working people** and minors who want abortions. She was one of Bush’s first judicial nominees after he won the White House. > > - William H. Pryor Jr., for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. Bush gave the former Alabama attorney general a temporary recess appointment in 2004 and renominated him for a lifetime seat on the court. Awaiting action by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Democratic senators have objected to his comments and writings on abortion and homosexuality, which included a Supreme Court brief in a Texas sodomy case that **likened homosexual acts to "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography and even incest and pedophilia.**" > > - Janice Rogers Brown, for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Approved by the Judiciary Committee, awaiting vote by full Senate. Democrats say the California Supreme Court justice is a conservative judicial activist who **ignores the law in favor of her own political views**. They cite **her support for limits on** abortion rights and **corporate liability** and her opposition to affirmative action. > > - William G. Myers III, for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Approved by the Judiciary Committee, awaiting vote by full Senate. Democrats say the **former Interior Department solicitor has an anti-environment agenda and opposed environmental protections while at Interior and as a private lawyer and lobbyist for cattle and mining interests**. Sounds to me like the first 2 are ultra-conservative religious activists (more on this in a second), the third is a cross between a ultra-conservative religious activicist and a coporate stooge, and the fourth is fully in the pocket of the mining, ranching, and oil lobbies. None of these guys sound like strict constructionists at first glance. Where in the Constitution does it talk about limits on corporate liablility? Where in the Constitution does it talk about sodomy? In my book a person who compares consenual sex between two (same sex) adults to “_adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography and even incest and pedophilia_” should be examined very carefully and probably should not be a judge with the ability to define what the Constitution means. > [@](#): > > So I would say that partisan reasons - meaning both “payback time” and “anyone who doesn’t support abortion right 100% under any circumstances no matter what is a far-right extremist woman-hating blah blah blah” - account for most if not all the resistance to the current crop of nominees. Come on **Shodan** , you can’t be serious… I agree the last 3 seem to be “payback time” or at the very least a protest of past actions, but this"_support abortion right 100% under any…_" is over the top. How many of the 200-odd judges that have been approved since 2000 supported abortion rights? My guess would be 0 knowing the current administration and the current Senate. I cannot imagine President Bush nominating a pro-choice candidate. > [@](#): > > Incidentally, you mentioned that Democrats opposed four of the seven because they are religious. The Democrats might want to rephrase their opposition to those four. Why? Many (actually most) democrats are sincerely religious Christians just like Republicans. Please do not imply that Democrats are godless heathans becuas it is not true. Second, I would oppose someone being a government leader, judge, etc… because of their religion. This isn’t Iran or Afganistan under the Taliban. We try to keep a wall of separation between church and state here. Don’t we? Is this something about our government that we are rethinking? To me, if someone cannot separate their religious ideals and beliefs from the **will of the people** and the **law of the land** they do not belong in government. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2005, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-real-issue-with-the-senates-judicial-confirmation-process/301179/86 "2005-05-01T02:42:13Z")
As you can see, the real issue with the Senate’s judicial confirmation process is that it’s Mr. Bush’s political assistant, currently unmarried, and resides in Washington, D.C. Thanks for writing! ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2005, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-real-issue-with-the-senates-judicial-confirmation-process/301179/87 "2005-05-01T11:55:35Z")
> [@Eyer8](#): > > Bah. I object to your terminology. Pretty much as bad as calling someone an extremist or a corporate stooge or whatever because they disagree even moderately on abortion, wouldn’t you agree? This basically boils down to Democrat Congresspeople calling a judge they don’t like a whole bunch of the worst names they can think of. Partisanship, in other words. And on all the judges they oppose. Business as usual. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2005, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-real-issue-with-the-senates-judicial-confirmation-process/301179/88 "2005-05-01T15:23:54Z")
And a quick correction - > [@](#): > > Why? Many (actually most) democrats are sincerely religious Christians just like Republicans. Please do not imply that Democrats are godless heathans becuas it is not true. I didn’t say or imply that they were godless heathens. I said they might not want to be so up front that they were opposing certain judges because those judges were “religious”. Thus I linked to the part of the Constitution forbidding a religious test for public office. Try not to read things into posts that aren’t there. That’s much of the problem with activist judges and the Constitution, and something we ought all to oppose. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2005, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-real-issue-with-the-senates-judicial-confirmation-process/301179/89 "2005-05-01T15:43:15Z")
Just so! If we but follow friend **Shodan’s** sterling example of non-partisan civility and polite discourse, we might move more quickly to uniform and unanimous approval of The Leader! _Gee Dub-ya, my Lord, Gee Dub-ya! Oh, Lord! Gee Dub-ya!_ ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2005, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-real-issue-with-the-senates-judicial-confirmation-process/301179/90 "2005-05-01T16:31:01Z")
Of interest, this column by noted radical lefty David “Bobo” Brooks… > **[Opinion | Let's Make a Deal (Published 2005)](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/opinion/lets-make-a-deal.html)** > > Bill Frist should have taken the deal. Last week, the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid, made an offer to head off a nuclear exchange over judicial nominations. Reid offered to allow votes on a few of the judges stuck in limbo if the... Requires some bullshit. You can see a reaction to same over at _Washington Monthly_…[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/)… which has pertinent excerpts and requires no registration. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2005, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-real-issue-with-the-senates-judicial-confirmation-process/301179/91 "2005-05-01T16:41:58Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You are confusing legality with legitimacy. > > The filibuster crudely supplies a check so that a simple majority cannot transform itself into a power beyond its own number. The tighty righties sling around the word “majority” as though it were some sacred intonation, a magic word to crush dissent. Carried to its inherent absurdity, your approach would permit 50.01% of the citizenry to tyrannize 49.99%, chanting “majority rules!” to the tune of “neener neener”. “It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.” Sen. Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, May 14, 1997 “I find it simply baffling that a senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination.” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, October 5, 1999 “Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Congressional Record, September 11, 1997 “I respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor. . . .It is not appropriate not to have hearings on them, not bring them to the floor and not to allow a vote.” Sen. Joe Biden, Congressional Record, March 19, 1997 “If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down.” Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, September 28, 1998 “I do not believe that I as a member of the minority ought to have the right to absolutely stop something because I think it is wrong, that that is rule by minority.” Sen. Tom Harkin, Congressional Record, January 5, 1995 "The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said: ‘Some current nominees have been waiting a considerable time for a Senate Judiciary Committee vote or a final floor vote … The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry, it should vote him up or vote him down.’ Which is exactly what I would like.” Sen. Pat Leahy, Congressional Record, March 7, 2000 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2005, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-real-issue-with-the-senates-judicial-confirmation-process/301179/92 "2005-05-01T16:58:02Z")
Sakes alive! Why, these quotes seem to suggest that there are elements of hypocrisy and opportunism amongst Democrat politicians! I gasp with horror and dismay, and only hope I can see well enough through these tears of disillussion to fill out this Republican Party registration, that I might align myself with such paragons of candor, probity and civility as Tom DeLay (R-Undead, the worlds most cuddly arachnid…) Should I post a few pertinent quotes from the abovenamed and his allies? No, I hardly think that necessary. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2005, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-real-issue-with-the-senates-judicial-confirmation-process/301179/93 "2005-05-01T17:15:20Z")
“But don’t pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don’t think deserves to be on the circuit court because I am going to continue to do it at every opportunity I believe a judge should not be on that court. That is my responsibility. That is my advise and consent role, and I intend to exercise it. I don’t appreciate being told that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States. I swore to uphold that Constitution, and I am doing it now by standing up and saying what I am saying.” Senator Mark Smith (R - New Hampshire), March 7, 2000 ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2005, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-real-issue-with-the-senates-judicial-confirmation-process/301179/94 "2005-05-01T21:32:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.” Sen. Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, May 14, 1997 > > “I find it simply baffling that a senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination.” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, October 5, 1999 > > “Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Congressional Record, September 11, 1997 > > “I respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor. . . .It is not appropriate not to have hearings on them, not bring them to the floor and not to allow a vote.” Sen. Joe Biden, Congressional Record, March 19, 1997 > > “If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down.” Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, September 28, 1998 > > “I do not believe that I as a member of the minority ought to have the right to absolutely stop something because I think it is wrong, that that is rule by minority.” Sen. Tom Harkin, Congressional Record, January 5, 1995 > > "The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said: ‘Some current nominees have been waiting a considerable time for a Senate Judiciary Committee vote or a final floor vote … The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry, it should vote him up or vote him down.’ Which is exactly what I would like.” Sen. Pat Leahy, Congressional Record, March 7, 2000 Payback’s a bitch, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2005, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-real-issue-with-the-senates-judicial-confirmation-process/301179/95 "2005-05-01T23:08:18Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Sakes alive! Why, these quotes seem to suggest that there are elements of hypocrisy and opportunism amongst Democrat politicians! I gasp with horror and dismay, and only hope I can see well enough through these tears of disillussion to fill out this Republican Party registration, that I might align myself with such paragons of candor, probity and civility as Tom DeLay (R-Undead, the worlds most cuddly arachnid…) > > Should I post a few pertinent quotes from the abovenamed and his allies? No, I hardly think that necessary. It’s not necessary. I posted my set of quotes not to convince you to join the GOP, but to point out that your criticism of the “tighty-righties” was incomplete; the Democrats engaged in similar conduct when they had the majority… and the GOP was about equally indignant at the suggestion that their obstructionist tactics were improper. In other words: no monopoly on hypocrisy, on either side. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-real-issue-with-the-senates-judicial-confirmation-process/301179/96 "2005-05-02T12:56:53Z")
But did the Democrats then complain that _it had never been done before_? Do tell us where you found those quotes, apparently all conveniently in the same place. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-real-issue-with-the-senates-judicial-confirmation-process/301179/97 "2005-05-02T13:26:03Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > But did the Democrats then complain that _it had never been done before_? Not that I know of. Are the Republicans now complaining it has never been done before? If they are, it’s a specious claim. Although there are slight differences between then and now (holding up nominations in committee versus filibustering at the floor level) they are differences of a technical nature only. In each case, the minority party was using the house rules to prevent the majority party from confirming its desired judicial nominees. At the time these quotes were generated, I have no doubt that we can find Republicans affirming piously that they are exercising their duty in stopping the nominations… just as Democrats are doing now, and with equal lack of integrity. > [@](#): > > Do tell us where you found those quotes, apparently all conveniently in the same place. They were on my vast right-wing conspiracy mailing list, for use as talking points in just this sort of situation. What difference does it make? ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-real-issue-with-the-senates-judicial-confirmation-process/301179/98 "2005-05-02T13:38:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Although there are slight differences between then and now (holding up nominations in committee versus filibustering at the floor level) they are differences of a technical nature only. In each case, the minority party was using the house rules to prevent the majority party from confirming its desired judicial nominees. Not to put a dent in the “everybody in politics is a politician” argument, especially because it is correct, but the minority party itself cannot hold up nominations in committee – they’d be outvoted. The Republican practice of holding nominations in committee occurred while they were the _majority_ party – that is to say, given sufficient party discipline they could have voted the nominees down on the floor. Whether they chose to do it in committee instead because they didn’t have sufficient discipline on the floor, because they were to cowardly to record all those “no” votes or for some other reason I don’t know. But as a minority party, blue slips when available (and when accepted – they weren’t and aren’t always) and the filibuster are the tools available. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-real-issue-with-the-senates-judicial-confirmation-process/301179/99 "2005-05-02T14:26:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Are the Republicans now complaining it has never been done before? Not the pols themselves, who know better, but that’s often innocently claimed by their commentariat. > [@](#): > > They were on my vast right-wing conspiracy mailing list, for use as talking points in just this sort of situation. > > What difference does it make? Do you need an explanation of the credibility of glurge? Surely your experiences in the last couple of campaigns demonstrates that the stuff you get that way from the VRWC is often at best filtered and at worst fabricated. We can accept your own probity, but not your sources’; see how it works? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-real-issue-with-the-senates-judicial-confirmation-process/301179/100 "2005-05-02T14:58:50Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Do you need an explanation of the credibility of glurge? Surely your experiences in the last couple of campaigns demonstrates that the stuff you get that way from the VRWC is often at best filtered and at worst fabricated. We can accept your own probity, but not your sources’; see how it works? My source is [http://thomas.loc.gov](http://thomas.loc.gov) - it contains the complete Congressional Record from the relevant years. Ms. Boxer’s comment may be found at JUDICIAL VACANCIES (Senate - May 14, 1997), page S4421. Mr. Daschle’s comment appears in the EXECUTIVE SESSION – (Senate - October 05, 1999) record. Ms. Feinstein’s comment appears at NOMINATION OF JANET C. HALL OF CONNECTICUT, TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT (Senate - September 11, 1997) - Page: S9166. Mr. Leahy’s comment is at Page S11796. Mr. Harkin’s comment is at AMENDING PARAGRAPH 2 OF RULE XXV (Senate - January 05, 1995) - Page: S432. To find these or any other comments, got to [http://thomas.loc.gov](http://thomas.loc.gov), pick “Search Congressional Record,” select the correct time span, and enter the reference number or search phrase. OK? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-real-issue-with-the-senates-judicial-confirmation-process/301179.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-real-issue-with-the-senates-judicial-confirmation-process/301179.md?page=6)