home

Liu Nomination Fails Cloture Vote

52 votes for cloture not enough.

Joan McCarter has some precious quotes from the GOP on how they would NEVER filibuster a judicial nominee:

Senator Saxby Chambliss (GA): “I believe [filibustering judicial nominees] is in violation of the Constitution” (4/13/05).

Senator John Cornyn (TX): Judicial filibusters are “offensive to our nation’s constitutional design…. [S]eparation of powers principles strongly suggest that the Senate may not—and especially not by mere Senate rule—enhance its own power in such a manner without offending the Constitution” (2004). [More . . .]

Senator Mike Crapo (ID): “[T]he Constitution requires the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees” (5/25/05).

Senator Jim Demint (SC): “[D]enials of simple votes on judicial nominees” are “unconstitutional” (5/22/05).

Senator Lindsey Graham (SC): “I think filibustering judges will destroy the judiciary over time. I think it’s unconstitutional” (5/23/05).

Senator Orrin Hatch (UT): Filibustering judicial nominees is “unfair, dangerous, partisan, and unconstitutional” (1/12/05).

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX): “[T]he Constitution envisions a 51-vote majority for judgeships…. [Filibustering judges] amend[s] the Constitution without going through the proper processes…. We have a majority rule that is the tradition of the Senate with judges. It is the constitutional requirement” (4/28/05).

Senator Johnny Isakson (GA): “[T]he Constitution require[s] an up-or-down vote” on judicial nominees. “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” (5/19/05).

Senator Jon Kyl (AZ): “The President was elected fair and square. He has the right to submit judicial nominees and it is the Senate’s obligation under the Constitution to act on those nominees” (4/10/08).

Senator Jeff Sessions (AL): “[The Constitution] says the Senate shall advise and consent on treaties by a two-thirds vote, and simply ‘shall advise and consent’ on nominations…. I think there is no doubt the Founders understood that to mean … confirmation of a judicial nomination requires only a simple majority vote” (7/27/03).

Senator Richard Shelby (AL): “Why not allow the President to do his job of selecting judicial nominees and let us do our job in confirming or denying them? Principles of fairness call for it and the Constitution requires it” (11/12/03).

Senator John Thune (SD): Filibustering judicial nominees “is contrary to our Constitution …. It was the Founders’ intention that the Senate dispose of them with a simple majority vote” (4/21/05).

That was then . . .

< The Case Against The Voucher/Exchange Model For Health Insurance Reform | Bail Set For Dominique Strauss-Kahn >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Can the gloves come off now? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 19, 2011 at 02:37:06 PM EST
    Can we awaken from dreaming about teams of rivals?

    No. (none / 0) (#2)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 19, 2011 at 02:40:49 PM EST
    Figures (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 19, 2011 at 06:55:36 PM EST
    Story of my sorry ass life :)

    Parent
    It's fairly amazing (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by andgarden on Thu May 19, 2011 at 04:20:03 PM EST
    how timid the President has been in using recess appointments as a "stick" to get more votes, especially on agency positions.

    How would Mitch McConnel like to have "his" vacant seats (i.e., the recent FCC --> Comcast departure) filled by partisan Democrats?

    Mr. President, I'll take a recess appointment to the FCC!

    extraordinary circumstances (none / 0) (#3)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 19, 2011 at 02:41:27 PM EST


    if you consider (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by CST on Thu May 19, 2011 at 02:57:11 PM EST
    A Democrat being nominated by a Democrat "extraordinary" than sure.

    If they want to be hypocrits fine, they are within their rights to filibuster this. But lets not pretend they are being anything else.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 19, 2011 at 02:44:46 PM EST
    I think it is perfectly constitutional and the GOP is well within its rights to block Liu, given that Senate rules permit this.

    I've never had a problem with the judicial filibuster.

    Parent

    Me either. (none / 0) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 19, 2011 at 02:47:09 PM EST
    I'm also not suprised that pols are acting liks pols.

    Parent
    They said that stuff so often I still (none / 0) (#9)
    by ruffian on Thu May 19, 2011 at 04:59:55 PM EST
    hear Lindsey Graham's voice in my head when I hear the words 'up or down'. Of course it sounds more like 'upperdown'.

    They don't really care about consistency though.