Filibusted

[JollyRoger]

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…. 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).

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 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 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).

Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Goodwin Liu, of California, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit )

(AKA - Should Goodwin Liu get an up or down vote?)

Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Present
Hutchison (R-TX), Not Voting
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Nay

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00074

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

http://www.emailyoursenator.com/oath.html

What should be the consequence of a Senator voting in a manner that he has stated violates the Constitution?

 

[Ajidica]

If I am reading this correctly, only two out of those on the list voted like one doing a 'filibuster'. Given current republican hippocracy, they are doing pretty good here.

 

[JollyRoger]

If I am reading this correctly, only two out of those on the list voted like one doing a 'filibuster'. Given current republican hippocracy, they are doing pretty good here.

A nay vote does not allow the nomination to go to the floor for an up or down vote (thus nay = filibuster). Voting present or not voting is the equivalent of a nay vote, so far as practical consequences go. The only Constitutional choice here, according to the above quotes, is a yea vote.

 

[Ajidica]

So hippocracy does abound. Glad to see the GOP is acting true to form.

 

[Cutlass]

Water is wet

 

[Mr. Dictator]

*Reads OP*

*Sips coffee*

Yup, still tastes the same.

 

[Hygro]

that's... I wish there was anything to say, really. Like some kind of outrage instead of a continued disappointment.

 

[JollyRoger]

I was hoping for some explanation from the resident GOP supporters here.

 

[Junius]

I was hoping for some explanation from the resident GOP supporters here.

Well i'll give it a shot. First off, i know this sounds childish, but the Democrats opened the door for this kind of thing. They started the idea of savaging judicial nominees and trying to strong-arm the process with the Bork nomination in 1987. To "Bork" is even in the dictionary meaning "to defame someone to prevent that persons appointment to public office". This tactic was threatened in the Bush adminstrations as well against some of his nominees. So for the Dems to claim they would never do this is farfetched.

Secondly, you cherry-picked the quotes and left out the most important one. They agreed not to filibuster a nominee except "in extraordinary circumstances". They viewed Liu's opinons as outside the mainstream. The same rationale Kennedy and others used to so strongly oppose the Bork nomination.

This is a classic case of its wrong when the GOP does it, but necessary and right when the Dems do it. Thats where the hypocrisy in this post is.

 

[JollyRoger]

Do you have any quotes from Dems saying that the filibuster is unconstitutional? I can understand the spare flip flop where you hold one position while in power and another while out of power, but when you are on the record of saying something is a violation of the Constitution, then that is a bit more troubling, given the oath you took to uphold the Constitution.

And while Liu may not be the GOP's cup of tea, how is he any more of an extraordinary circumstance than the nominees that the Dems were filibustering back in the day? Justice Thomas holds views that are not in the mainstream. Should the GOP start impeachment proceedings on him?

 

[zjl56]

I was hoping for some explanation from the resident GOP supporters here.

You are probably not going to get any defense of the filibuster.. Its plain obstructionism and not much else.

 

[JollyRoger]

You are probably not going to get any defense of the filibuster.. Its plain obstructionism and not much else.

It has its place and this very well may be one of them, but I would like to see each of the Senators quoted above explain their change on their view of the Constitution.

 

[BasketCase]

The Democrats use the filibuster all the time when the Republicans are at the wheel. It's not the Republicans Party that's being hypocritical here--rather, it's the OP. By pointing out only Republican hypocrisies, the OP paints a very deceptive picture.

So, just out of curiosity.....if the filibuster is such a nasty, why haven't the Democrats (or the Republicans, for that matter) ever written up legislation to eliminate the filibuster altogether?

Aha.......filiBUSTED!

 

[JollyRoger]

The Democrats use the filibuster all the time when the Republicans are at the wheel. It's not the Republicans Party that's being hypocritical here--rather, it's the OP. By pointing out only Republican hypocrisies, the OP paints a very deceptive picture.

So, just out of curiosity.....if the filibuster is such a nasty, why haven't the Democrats (or the Republicans, for that matter) ever written up legislation to eliminate the filibuster altogether?

Aha.......filiBUSTED!

I have not claimed the filibuster is bad. In fact, if you read the thread, you will see that I have said that it has a place (and this may be one of them). The question in this thread is why these Senators are acting in way they think is unconstitutional.

 

[Cutlass]

Well i'll give it a shot. First off, i know this sounds childish, but the Democrats opened the door for this kind of thing. They started the idea of savaging judicial nominees and trying to strong-arm the process with the Bork nomination in 1987. To "Bork" is even in the dictionary meaning "to defame someone to prevent that persons appointment to public office". This tactic was threatened in the Bush adminstrations as well against some of his nominees. So for the Dems to claim they would never do this is farfetched.

Secondly, you cherry-picked the quotes and left out the most important one. They agreed not to filibuster a nominee except "in extraordinary circumstances". They viewed Liu's opinons as outside the mainstream. The same rationale Kennedy and others used to so strongly oppose the Bork nomination.

This is a classic case of its wrong when the GOP does it, but necessary and right when the Dems do it. Thats where the hypocrisy in this post is.

Except that Bork is a crazy radical that is in no way qualified for the post of the Supreme Court. But was more or less acceptable on a lower court because there his say was not final. The Republicans now are killing the nominations of main stream candidates for lower courts.

To Bork someone implies that they are not at all qualified for the post.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Obama responded in part, "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Obama in 2007...yet He didn't get congressional authorization to get involved in Libya. Where are the threads calling Him out for acting in a manner he believes in unconstitutional?

Except that Bork is a crazy radical that is in no way qualified for the post of the Supreme Court

Crazy radical, or ethics (see the Saturday Night Massacre), are legitimate arguments against him being on the Supreme Court. But if serving as a law professor, solicitor general, and circuit court judge doesn't qualify him to be a Supreme, I would love to see what resume you consider good enough.

 

[Gooblah]

Obama in 2007...yet He didn't get congressional authorization to get involved in Libya. Where are the threads calling Him out for acting in a manner he believes in unconstitutional?

I mean, you obs got the memo that Obama is God, so he doesn't need to worry about stuff like that when he's figuring out who to Rapture...

 

[JollyRoger]

Obama in 2007...yet He didn't get congressional authorization to get involved in Libya. Where are the threads calling Him out for acting in a manner he believes in unconstitutional?

In this very forum.

 

[zjl56]

Except that Bork is a crazy radical that is in no way qualified for the post of the Supreme Court. But was more or less acceptable on a lower court because there his say was not final. The Republicans now are killing the nominations of main stream candidates for lower courts.

To Bork someone implies that they are not at all qualified for the post.

Looking at the filibuster it has definitely been useful to stop Bork and Harriet Miers, but the it was used in the last congress leans me towards getting rid of it..

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Obama in 2007...yet He didn't get congressional authorization to get involved in Libya. Where are the threads calling Him out for acting in a manner he believes in unconstitutional?

I'm definitely not angry at Obama's presidency (overall), but even I'm disappointed in him over it. He has rules just like any other president, and it makes no sense why he wouldn't get the approval. If the war can't stand up to congressional approval, we should get out. There are other tactics to achieve the goals of the strike. Maybe he's hopeful Gadaffi will become "collateral" at some point soon?