Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judicial Confirmation Hypocrisy-(Dems pontificating on "NO Filibuster," when they had majority)
CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.ORG ^ | MAY 19, 2005 | EDITOR

Posted on 05/19/2005 1:01:18 PM PDT by CHARLITE

As the Senate moves closer to a vote on the Constitutional Option – a vote to end the filibusters against President Bush’s judicial nominees – Senate Democrats have ramped up their rhetoric in an effort to defeat the measure. But it was these very same filibustering Senators who once argued that judicial nominees deserved up-or-down votes on the Senate floor. Don’t take our word for it. Here they are, in their own words…

Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)

"What I am saying to my friend is that in addition to what I have just said, we now have 30 nominations pending. Once they get out of committee, let's bring them here and vote up or down on them." [Congressional Record, March 7, 2000]

“I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, this is not a legacy of which one should be proud. My colleagues need to move these nominations. If there are some nominees whom they do not like, vote them down or do not bring them forward, but let's get these numbers up this year…” [Congressional Record, March 07, 2000]

“We’re going to have hearings [on President Clinton’s judicial nominees]. We’re going to have the process vetted as soon as possible. And I think we should have votes in committee and on the floor.” [Senator Harry Reid, CNN’s Evans, Novak, Hunt and Shields, June 9, 2001]

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Ranking Member, Judiciary Committee

“I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would refuse to put an anonymous hold on any judge; that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty. If we don't like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her down.” [Congressional Record, June 16, 1998]

"I have been calling for the Senate to work to ensure that all nominees are given fair treatment, including a fair vote for the many minority and women candidates who remain pending." [Congressional Record, July 21, 2000]

"To delay judicial nominations for months and years and to deny them a vote is wrong." [Congressional Record, October 14, 1998]

"I cannot recall a judicial nomination being successfully filibustered. I do recall earlier this year when the Republican Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and I noted how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination." [Congressional Record, October 14, 1998]

”I think the Senate is entitled to a vote in this matter, and I think the President is entitled for the Senate to vote, and I think the country is entitled for the Senate to vote. I would hope it’d be sent to the Senate, let the full Senate Act.” [Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, November 6, 1997]

Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA)

“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.” [Congressional Record, February 3, 1998]

“It is true that some Senators have voiced ‘concerns’ about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no.’” [Congressional Record, September 21, 1999]

“[D]elays can only be described as an abdication of the Senate’s constitutional responsibility to work with the President and ensure the integrity of our federal courts.” [Congressional Record, September 21, 1999]

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY)

“The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue before us, not the qualifications of the judges, which we can always debate. …It is an example of Government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees.” [Congressional Record, March 7, 2000]

“I also plead with my colleagues to move judges with alacrity – vote them up or down. But this delay makes a mockery of the Constitution, makes a mockery of the fact that we are here working, and makes a mockery of the lives of very sincere people who have put themselves forward to be judges and then they hang out there in limbo.” [Congressional Record, March 7, 2000]

Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL)

“Vote the person up or down. They are qualified or they are not.” [Congressional Record, September 28, 1998]

“…it is sad, and it borders on tragic, that men and women who are prepared to give their lives to public service, who have gone through a withering process of investigation, by the FBI, by the Judiciary Committee, by the White House, by the American Bar Association, and so many others, still must wait over a year, in many cases, for their nominations to be considered … by this Chamber. …It does a great disservice to this country and to the judiciary for us to create a process that is so demanding that ordinary people would be discouraged from trying.” [Congressional Record, March 19, 1997]

“I am suggesting that we would give our consent to all of these nominees. I am basically saying that this process should come to a close. The Senate should vote. It should make its decision.” [Congressional Record, September 28, 1998, in support of his Amendment to force a vote on delayed nominees]

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

“I think, whether these delays are on the Republican side or the Democratic side, let these names come up, let us have a debate, let us vote.” [ Congressional Record, January 28, 1998]

Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)

“Why should we have to trade progress for partisanship? I mean, this is our duty. This is something we should be doing. We’re not asking them to vote for these nominees, we’re just asking them to vote.” [Congressional Record, September 14, 2004]

“And the way that we’re handling these confirmations is irresponsible, it’s unacceptable, and it’s rude, to think that we are asking these people to put their lives on hold, to not even be heard … to not even be voted up or down.” [Press Conference, September 14, 2000]

Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE)

“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 to have a vote on the floor.” [Congressional Record, March 19, 1997]

“It is totally appropriate for Republicans to reject every single nominee if they want to. That is within their right. But it is not … appropriate not to have hearings on them, not to bring them to the floor and not to allow a vote.” [Congressional Record, March 19, 1997]

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)

“I’ll just close by saying that Governor Bush had the right idea. He said the candidate should get an up or down vote within 60 days of their nomination.” [Press Conference, September 14, 2000]

“If they want to vote against them, let them vote against them. That’s their prerogative. But at least have a vote.” [Press Conference, September 14, 2000]

Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)

“This politicization, Mr. President, has been extended to include the practice of denying nominees an up or down vote on the Senate floor. …If the majority of the Senate opposes a judicial nominee enough to derail a nomination by an up or down vote, then at least the process has been served. Instead, however, the President’s nominees are not even receiving that courtesy from this Senate.” [Congressional Record, December 15, 1997]

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI)

“The truth of the matter is that the leadership of the Senate has a responsibility to do what the Constitution says we should do, which is to advise and at lease vote on whether or not to consent to the nomination of nominees for these courts.” [Press Conference, September 14, 2000]

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI)

“A nomination delayed is justice delayed. As we know, justice delayed is justice denied. A vacancy unfilled is justice unfilled.” [Judiciary Committee hearing, June 10, 1999]

To learn more about Democrat hypocrisy on judicial confirmations, visit the “Name That Speaker” section of U.S. Senator John Cornyn’s (R-TX) website. http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/namethatspeaker/


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 109th; barbaraboxer; blanchelincoln; carllevin; cary; chuckschumer; doublestandard; edwardmkennedy; filibuster; harryreid; josephbiden; obstructionistdems; patrickleahy; paulsarbanes; quotes; richarddurbin; russfeingold; tomharkin

1 posted on 05/19/2005 1:01:20 PM PDT by CHARLITE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Mega-bump! Great info-


2 posted on 05/19/2005 1:05:40 PM PDT by andyk (Go Matt Kenseth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andyk

Why doesn't one of the Republican Senators use his hour of talk talk time to read these quotes into the Senate record during this debate?


3 posted on 05/19/2005 1:09:00 PM PDT by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
They're all hypocrites. Each side changes its position depending on whether or not it is in power. The fact that these a-hole dems were complaining means that there were some a-hole reps that were doing some filibustering to complain about.
4 posted on 05/19/2005 1:12:37 PM PDT by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

"Why doesn't one of the Republican Senators use his hour of talk talk time to read these quotes into the Senate record during this debate?"

Yes, bu then couldn't Democrats turn around and read quotes from Republicans from the same time period about why all judges DON'T deserve an up-or-down vote?


5 posted on 05/19/2005 1:14:54 PM PDT by Gone GF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ThreePuttinDude; Beth528; SMARTY; Ghost of Philip Marlowe; CyberAnt; AmericanArchConservative; ...
For your viewing pleasure!

Char :)

6 posted on 05/19/2005 1:16:44 PM PDT by CHARLITE (Not gonna be happy until the Hillster is sent packing, with Billery in tow. on a leash.........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Lousenberg wanted to end ALL filibusters......ALL!


7 posted on 05/19/2005 1:16:45 PM PDT by OldFriend (MAJOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH.....INSPIRATIONAL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Here's another list from SchnittShow.Com


Hindsight Comments from Congress
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) March 19, 1997: “But I also 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.”
 
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Illinois)September 28, 1998: “We should meet our responsibility. I think that responsibility requires us to act in a timely fashion on nominees sent before us. ... Vote the person up or down.”
 
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) September 11, 1997: “Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.”
 
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)February 3, 1998: “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. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) May 10, 2000: “The Founding Fathers certainly intended that the Senate advise as to judicial nominations, i.e., consider, debate, and vote up or down. They surely did not intend that the Senate, for partisan or factional reasons, would remain silent and simply refuse to give any advice or consider and vote at all.”
 
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) 5/14/97 : “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. Tom Daschle (D-SD): “I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination.” (Congressional Record, 10/5/99)
 
Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): “Hispanic or non-Hispanic, African American or non-African American, woman or man, it is wrong not to have a vote on the Senate floor.” (Congressional Record, 10/28/99)
 
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): “My expectation is that we’re not going to hold up judicial nominations. …You will not see us do what was done to us in recent years in the Senate with judicial nominations.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 6/4/01)
 
Richard Durbin (D-IL) "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." (Cong. Rec., 9/28/98, S11021)
 
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.” (Congressional Record, 9/11/97)
 
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don’t like them, we can vote against them.” (Congressional Record, 9/16/99)
 
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Our institutional integrity requires an up-or-down vote.” (Congressional Record, 10/4/99)
 
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “[The filibuster process] is used … as blackmail for one Senator to get his or her way on something that they could not rightfully win through the normal processes.” (Congressional Record, 1/4/95)
 
Tom Harkin (D-IA) "Have the guts to come out and vote up or down….And once and for all, put behind us this filibuster procedure on nominations." (Cong. Rec., 6/22/95, S8861)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “I urge the Republican leadership to take the steps necessary to allow the full Senate to vote up or down on these important nominations.” (Congressional Record, 9/11/00)
 
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “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.” (Congressional Record, 2/3/98)
 
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “It is true that some Senators have voiced concerns about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ ... Parties with cases, waiting to be heard by the federal courts deserve a decision by the Senate.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)
 
Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI): “These nominees, who have to put their lives on hold waiting for us to act, deserve an ‘up or down’ vote.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)
 
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “I hope we … will accept our responsibility and vote people up or vote them down. … If we want to vote against them, vote against them.” (Congressional Record, 10/22/97)
 
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “Now, every Senator can vote against any nominee. … But it is the responsibility of the U.S. Senate to at least bring them to a vote.” (Congressional Record, 10/22/97)
 
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “ "I have stated over and over again … that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported …” (Congressional Record, 6/18/98)
 
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “[E]arlier this year … I noted how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination.” (Congressional Record, 10/14/98)
 
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “[I]f the person is otherwise qualified, he or she gets the vote. … Vote them up, vote them down.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)
 
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): “[W]e should have up-or-down votes in the committee and on the floor.” (CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,” 6/9/01)
 
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): “[W]e are charged with voting on the nominees. The Constitution does not say if the Congress is controlled by a different party than the President there shall be no judges chosen.” (Congressional Record, 3/7/00)
 
Carl Levin (D-MI) "If a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate is prepared to vote to confirm the President's appointment, that vote should occur." (Cong. Rec., 6/21/95, S8806)
 

8 posted on 05/19/2005 1:25:57 PM PDT by ThreePuttinDude (John McCain, the best Dem the Repubs have to offer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Great post! With the Dems, like the Soviets:
"What's ours is ours. What's yours--is negotiable."


9 posted on 05/19/2005 1:26:05 PM PDT by tumblindice (Some days you hunt the meat, some days the meat hunts you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThreePuttinDude
Thanks, Threeputtin! Nice to hear from you! Good addition to the hypocritical Dems' previous remarks! They can run, but they can't hide! I wish we could do an UP or DOWN vote to bounce every one of these frauds clear into kingdom come!

Char :)

10 posted on 05/19/2005 1:32:41 PM PDT by CHARLITE (Not gonna be happy until the Hillster is sent packing, with Billery in tow. on a leash.........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC

In several of the threads on this topic, I have hoped that someone would make this point.

Thank you.

They're all effen hypocrites who bank on the fact that few of us can remember what we had for dinner last night.


11 posted on 05/19/2005 1:54:00 PM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Wait- wait.... you're saying that these guys are HYPOCRITES????

How can I go on living?


12 posted on 05/19/2005 2:08:57 PM PDT by agooga (The Kyoto Protocol will lower global temperature by .07 degrees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Since it would appear that if you're a Senator and your time comes to talk you can boreass and pretty much say whatever you want, on, or off, topic, perhaps "Leader" Frist could combine both of these lists and ask a Senator to read them from the floor. That could be real interesting!!


13 posted on 05/19/2005 2:36:02 PM PDT by upchuck ("If our nation be destroyed, it would be from the judiciary." ~ Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck; nothingnew
"Leader" Frist could combine both of these lists and ask a Senator to read them from the floor. That could be real interesting!!"

The best would be to see this entire list of quotes appear ABOVE THE FOLD in the NY Times and L.A. Times simultaneously. Now THAT would be "FAIR AND BALANCED" delivery of NEWS in this country!

Char :)

14 posted on 05/19/2005 4:00:46 PM PDT by CHARLITE (Not gonna be happy until the Hillster is sent packing, with Billery in tow. on a leash.........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: agooga

Wait- wait.... you're saying that these guys are HYPOCRITES????
----
Beyond your ordinary, generic hypocrites. Obstructionist, lying, criminal hypocrites is getting the sights aligned on the target a bit better.... :-)


15 posted on 05/19/2005 6:00:56 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Thanks for the ping!


16 posted on 05/19/2005 10:22:37 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: CHARLITE

Democrats just doing the JF'nKerry flip flop...its part of the liberal mental disorder...do as I say now not as I said then...


18 posted on 05/20/2005 12:01:53 AM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: FairModerate
Well, the thing is the Republicans won the last couple of elections, but the sorelosermen of the left just don't want to give up control. Sorry, pal, but that's not the way it works. When you lose, you lose control. Despite who may have said what in the past, I'm hoping the Republicans go all the way with this. It's way past time that some constitutionally minded judges get appointed. Time for the left to sit down and quit whining.
20 posted on 05/20/2005 12:43:54 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FairModerate

Um, the majority of those quotes are in regards to -legislative- filibusters, not judicial nominations.

And yes, there's a huge difference.

Qwinn


21 posted on 05/20/2005 1:12:59 AM PDT by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FairModerate
Oh, and you might ask, why were Republicans defending legislative filibusters? The Democrats couldn't possibly have been so baldly hypocritical as to have opposed even -those-, which unlike judicial filibusters really -do- have hundreds of years of precedent and tradition behind them.

Actually - yes, they could be that hypocritical. And they were.

Filibuster Rules: Then & Now

In 1995, 19 Democrats voted to eliminate all filibusters.

by Sean Rushton

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D., Conn.) on Wednesday held a press conference to criticize Republican efforts to restore Senate tradition to the judicial confirmation process. But another proposal regarding Senate rules somehow escaped his ire, and has received scant attention despite the New York Times editorial board’s recently saying it would go “even further than the ‘nuclear option’ in eliminating the power of the filibuster.”

That proposal would amend Senate rules to end all filibusters, not just those against judicial nominees. The proposal’s sponsor said that “the filibuster rules are unconstitutional” and was quoted as saying “the filibuster is nothing short of legislative piracy.” He announced his intent to end all filibusters with an unambiguous statement: “We cannot allow the filibuster to bring Congress to a grinding halt. So today I start a drive to do away with a dinosaur — the filibuster rule.”

Despite its support by several senior senators, you haven’t heard about this proposal in the MoveOn.org ads blasting Senate Republicans. And you probably haven’t heard about it from Senate Democrats who now give their full-throated support to filibusters against President Bush’s nominees. Why? Because the proposal wasn’t offered by Republicans; it was introduced in 1995 by senior Democrats, including Sens. Lieberman and Tom Harkin (D., Iowa). When it came to a vote, 19 Democrats, including leading blue-state senators such as Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, supported the measure.

Link: National Review

Qwinn

22 posted on 05/20/2005 1:22:06 AM PDT by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

A minority of Senate Democrats are effectively changing the law with their obstructionist tactics."Fully qualified individuals are being denied due process by partisan-minded Senate Democrats."


23 posted on 05/20/2005 3:43:10 AM PDT by Beth528
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson