Suddenly they changed their mind on Meiers?
Smells like hypocrisy to me.
Do you truly not understand what the left is trying to do with their false moral-equivalency argument here? You don't see that they are grasping onto the executive-nomination filibuster with all their fading strength?
Do you really think that the failure of the Senate to perform its Constitutionally mandated duty to give Advise and Consent (with an up or down vote on the Senate floor) is equal to citizens and group of citizens insisting that an unwanted nominee withdraw or be withdrawn?
I don't recall a single conservative asking for the Senate to withhold any vote on Miers. Can you point me to any who did that?
Cry Me a River, Hugh
Posted by: Dale Franks on Thursday, October 27, 2005As far as the up-or-down vote thing goes, one notes that the problem conservatives had with the up-or-down vote requirement was that the Democrats were denying Senate votes on judicial nominees who had already been vetted, and reported out of the Judiciary Committee. At no point in time has the issue been that every presidential nominee, no matter how unqualified, must be accepted without dissent from the moment of nomination. Nor has the issue ever been that the president's supporters must remain silent to allow any nominee, regardless of qualifications, to complete the nomination process. The whole point of the argument was that qualified nominees, whose nominations were before the Senate, were refused a vote by senators of the opposing party. Conflating that with pundits who have nothing whatsoever to do with the nomination of confirmation process, and who merely express their opinions about the quality of a nominee, is either intentionally intellectually dishonest, or a sign of an sad inability to reason properly.