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

Skip to comments.

Sen. Strangelove Or: How Democrats stopped winning and learned to love the filibuster.
OPINION JOURNAL.COM ^ | APRIL 27, 2005 | PETE DUPONT

Posted on 04/26/2005 10:47:26 PM PDT by CHARLITE

Sen. Barbara Boxer is a longtime opponent of judicial nomination filibusters. Or she was. Suddenly the light has dawned, and she realizes how wrong she was to oppose them: "I thought I knew everything. I didn't get it. . . . I am here to say I was totally wrong."

Other Democratic senators have had similar changes in belief: Joe Biden and Robert Byrd, Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, Joe Lieberman, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer and their erstwhile colleagues Lloyd Bentsen, and Tom Daschle have all vigorously opposed the use of the filibuster against judicial nominations. Mr. Schumer was for voting judicial nominations "up or down" without delay. Mr. Leahy flatly opposed a filibuster against Clarence Thomas's Supreme Court nomination: "The president and the nominee and all Americans deserve an up-or-down vote." Mr. Harkin believed "the filibuster rules are unconstitutional," Mr. Daschle declared that "democracy means majority rule, not minority gridlock," and Mr. Kennedy that "senators who believe in fairness will not let the minority of the Senate deny [the nominee] his vote by the entire Senate."

But that was then, when Democrats controlled the Senate. Now, they are a frustrated minority and it is different. Mr. Leahy has voted against cloture to end filibusters 21 out of 26 times; Mr. Kennedy, 18 out of 23. Now all these Senators practice and defend the use of filibusters against judicial nominees.

This fundamental change in deeply held liberal beliefs has made a difference. . Mr. Bush nominated Justice Priscilla Owen of the Texas Supreme Court for the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals almost four years ago. She has the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association but has been filibustered four times by a Senate minority that once devoutly believed filibustering was morally wrong and clearly unconstitutional.

(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: antifilibuster; bentsen; biden; boxer; byrd; democrats; filibuster; harkin; judges; judicial; kennedy; leahy; lieberman; nominees; profilibuster; reid; schumer; ussenate

1 posted on 04/26/2005 10:47:28 PM PDT by CHARLITE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
This is what is known as blatant, baldfaced hypocrisy.

Dems excel at it.
2 posted on 04/26/2005 11:56:27 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher (Hillary for President? She wants to be Pope!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

What I don't understand is WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE REPUBLICANS? How hard could it be to get a tape or quote of what each of these hypocritical SOBs said back when, and to then find a more recent one saying exactly the opposite. Run the ads both nationally and in the home states of each of them, but most especially the ones up for election next year. Rinse and repeat. And repeat. And repeat.

It ain't rocket science. WTF are they waiting for?


3 posted on 04/27/2005 8:19:38 AM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ 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