Another GOP Flip-Flop: We were against SCOTUS filibusters, before we were for them

Polk

Classic
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
9,791
Reaction score
577
Points
138
Location
Ost
The second-ranking Republican in the Senate suggested on Sunday that the party would filibuster the next appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, if that nominee were deemed to be outside of the judicial mainstream.

"It will all depend on what kind of a person it is," Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) declared during an appearance on "Fox News Sunday." "I think the president should nominate a qualified person. I hope, however, he does not nominate an overly ideological person. That will be the test, and if he doesn't nominate someone who is overly ideological, you may see Republicans voting against, but I don't think you will see them engage in a filibuster."

...

Given the partisan rancor that has brought the Senate to a standstill much of this past year, the notion that a Supreme Court nominee would be subjected to a filibuster attempt doesn't seem all that dubious. And yet, if successful, it would resemble something of a high-water-mark for the politicization of the Court confirmation process. Robert Bork's nomination, for instance, was not filibustered. It was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 58-42.

Asked whether Republicans would appear hypocritical should they block the next Obama Court nominee after having decried the treatment of Bork and Bush-nominees by Democrats in Congress, Kyl acknowledged that the filibuster was "wrong and it shouldn't be done."

Nevertheless, the Arizona Republican still wouldn't rule it out. "I think you would agree that if only one side is permitted to do it -- the Democrats and not the Republicans -- then you have a very unfair system," he said. "I would prefer to go back to the situation where it is not done by either party. But the Democrats won that fight. They filibustered Miguel Estrada."

Jon Kyl: GOP Willing To Filibuster Obama's Next Supreme Court Nominee


So all that jumping up and down demanding an "up-or-down vote" was bullshit. Not that I'm surprised.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,119
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
Funny, it seems to me McCain made that deal of 14 specifically so the Republicans could use this now.

Course, i still disagree with it. And I dont think the fillibuster should be used. Maybe that will cause the Democrats to envoke the nuclear option and stop this bs though.
 

Zander

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
22,307
Reaction score
8,593
Points
940
Location
Los Angeles CA
If a judge is "outside the judicial mainstream" I expect the Senate to exercise their obligation to stop the appointment.
 

Lumpy 1

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
40,441
Reaction score
13,397
Points
2,290
Obama will probably pick one of his old Buddies... Van Jones, Reverend Rice or at least an ACLU, America hater.
 
OP
Polk

Polk

Classic
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
9,791
Reaction score
577
Points
138
Location
Ost
If a judge is "outside the judicial mainstream" I expect the Senate to exercise their obligation to stop the appointment.
Kyl's definition of "outside the judicial mainstream" is anyone Obama appoints.
 

Lumpy 1

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
40,441
Reaction score
13,397
Points
2,290
If a judge is "outside the judicial mainstream" I expect the Senate to exercise their obligation to stop the appointment.
Kyl's definition of "outside the judicial mainstream" is anyone Obama appoints.
Obama change.. is a change to socialism and redistribution, with that in mind, who is he likely to pick?
 

NYcarbineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
117,063
Reaction score
13,858
Points
2,210
Location
Finger Lakes, NY
Republican hypocrisy isn't even interesting anymore.

I say nominate a popular liberal judge from a state with 2 Republican senators and force them both to vote against him, or her, to sustain the filibuster.
 

Tom Clancy

Clancy for Ron Paul
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
3,222
Reaction score
616
Points
48
Location
North Carolina.
Republican hypocrisy isn't even interesting anymore.

I say nominate a popular liberal judge from a state with 2 Republican senators and force them both to vote against him, or her, to sustain the filibuster.
Both Democrat and Republican Hypocrisy isn't even interesting anymore..

Quite sad actually.
 
OP
Polk

Polk

Classic
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
9,791
Reaction score
577
Points
138
Location
Ost

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
50,457
Reaction score
14,785
Points
2,220
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
If a judge is "outside the judicial mainstream" I expect the Senate to exercise their obligation to stop the appointment.
I agree, but it should be done with an up or down vote. Do you really want this circus going on every single time a vacancy opens on the Supreme Court? This is getting ridiculous.
 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
50,457
Reaction score
14,785
Points
2,220
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
If a judge is "outside the judicial mainstream" I expect the Senate to exercise their obligation to stop the appointment.
Kyl's definition of "outside the judicial mainstream" is anyone Obama appoints.
That seemed to be a lot of the Democrats' definitions of anyone Bush appointed as well. Do you see the problem here?
 
OP
Polk

Polk

Classic
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
9,791
Reaction score
577
Points
138
Location
Ost
If a judge is "outside the judicial mainstream" I expect the Senate to exercise their obligation to stop the appointment.
Kyl's definition of "outside the judicial mainstream" is anyone Obama appoints.
That seemed to be a lot of the Democrats' definitions of anyone Bush appointed as well. Do you see the problem here?
If what you said was true, I would certainly see a problem with it. The thing is, it's not. Almost all of Bush's judicial nominees were approved and neither of his Supreme Court nominees were filibustered. Same thing for appointments to executive branch agencies. For all the uproar about Obama using recess appointments to fill 15 positions, it's worth pointing out that the number of positions that are still empty in this administration due to Republican filibusters is in the triple-digits. And it has nothing to do with ideologically extreme nominees. There have been many appointees who were filibustered for close to a year who eventually passed on the floor with over 90 votes.
 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
50,457
Reaction score
14,785
Points
2,220
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
If what you said was true, I would certainly see a problem with it. The thing is, it's not.
Bullshit. It is too.

Almost all of Bush's judicial nominees were approved and neither of his Supreme Court nominees were filibustered.
Sotomayor wasn't filibustered either. I didn't say that they had to be filibustered. I said that just as you claim Kyl's definition of extreme is anybody appointed by Obama, that was the same definition for many Democrats regarding Bush's appointees. Samuel Alito was confirmed and he got raked through the coals during his confirmation and slandered and insulted left and right by people like Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer. Clarence Thomas got treated the same way. Remember the pubic hair on the Coke can? How about Janice Rogers Brown? Miguel Estrada? Hell, Ted Kennedy circulated a memo saying they had to stop the appointment of Estrada at all costs so that Bush couldn't end up making him the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court some day.

Same thing for appointments to executive branch agencies. For all the uproar about Obama using recess appointments to fill 15 positions, it's worth pointing out that the number of positions that are still empty in this administration due to Republican filibusters is in the triple-digits. And it has nothing to do with ideologically extreme nominees. There have been many appointees who were filibustered for close to a year who eventually passed on the floor with over 90 votes.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has had vacancies on it for almost 15 years because both parties have been blocking the presidents' nominees.

This isn't a partisan problem. You're the one trying to paint it as one you pathetic hack.
 

Zander

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
22,307
Reaction score
8,593
Points
940
Location
Los Angeles CA
If a judge is "outside the judicial mainstream" I expect the Senate to exercise their obligation to stop the appointment.
Kyl's definition of "outside the judicial mainstream" is anyone Obama appoints.
What about that wise "latino woman"? Was she Bork'd?? You sound like a partisan hack when you make unsubstantiated claims that fly in the face of the facts. You can do better.
 

Xenophon

Gone and forgotten
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
16,705
Reaction score
3,927
Points
48
Location
In your head
If a judge is "outside the judicial mainstream" I expect the Senate to exercise their obligation to stop the appointment.
Kyl's definition of "outside the judicial mainstream" is anyone Obama appoints.
What about that wise "latino woman"? Was she Bork'd?? You sound like a partisan hack when you make unsubstantiated claims that fly in the face of the facts. You can do better.
No, he can't.
 
OP
Polk

Polk

Classic
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
9,791
Reaction score
577
Points
138
Location
Ost
If what you said was true, I would certainly see a problem with it. The thing is, it's not.
Bullshit. It is too.
Sorry, but no, there is a difference between filibustering a handful of extremist nominees and filibustering every single nominee.

Almost all of Bush's judicial nominees were approved and neither of his Supreme Court nominees were filibustered.
Sotomayor wasn't filibustered either. I didn't say that they had to be filibustered. I said that just as you claim Kyl's definition of extreme is anybody appointed by Obama, that was the same definition for many Democrats regarding Bush's appointees. Samuel Alito was confirmed and he got raked through the coals during his confirmation and slandered and insulted left and right by people like Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer. Clarence Thomas got treated the same way. Remember the pubic hair on the Coke can? How about Janice Rogers Brown? Miguel Estrada? Hell, Ted Kennedy circulated a memo saying they had to stop the appointment of Estrada at all costs so that Bush couldn't end up making him the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court some day.
The only reason Sotomayor wasn't filibustered is because the Democrats had 60 seats at the time, and for all the issues senators will break from their party on, judicial confirmations aren't on that list. There is nothing wrong with appointees being questioned, and questioned aggressively, on the record and philosophy. These are important positions.

Same thing for appointments to executive branch agencies. For all the uproar about Obama using recess appointments to fill 15 positions, it's worth pointing out that the number of positions that are still empty in this administration due to Republican filibusters is in the triple-digits. And it has nothing to do with ideologically extreme nominees. There have been many appointees who were filibustered for close to a year who eventually passed on the floor with over 90 votes.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has had vacancies on it for almost 15 years because both parties have been blocking the presidents' nominees.

This isn't a partisan problem. You're the one trying to paint it as one you pathetic hack.
It's a problem, and one both parties engage it, but it's fundamentally dishonest to claim the Democrats have been engaged as deeply in it as the Republicans have.

Fact: The Republicans were the first to filibuster judicial nominees.
Fact: The Republicans are the only party to have ever filibustered a Supreme Court nominees.
Fact: The Republicans have filibustered many more nominees than the Democrats did under Bush.
Fact: At this point in his term, Bush had five nominees still on the floor. Obama has 77.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top