Free Republic

"If that standard was used in the past, many conservatives would have surely filibustered Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsberg. They would have looked not at her qualifications, but rather her legal and political philosophy. From a subjective view, she was clearly out of the mainstream of American jurisprudence. ..."

Dear Senator Graham,

I agree that filibusters on nominations are an impermissible shift in the balance of powers between the President and the Senate. However, would please explain to me why a conservative Senator is required to endorse a nomination that is "clearly outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence."?

You seem to be admitting that GOP Senators cast votes that are contrary to their principles.

Sort of like the fair up and down vote Miers got...

Cry Me a River, Hugh
Posted by: Dale Franks on Thursday, October 27, 2005

As 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.

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=2821

And was he [George Will] right about Bush as well, an idiot not capable of making an informed choice for SCOTUS?

He [President Bush] has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their prepresidential careers, and this president, particularly, is not disposed to such reflections.

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers' nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers' name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/georgewill/2005/10/04/159414.html

weren't there a few nominees NOT covered by the agreement? What is their status?

Summary of Circuit Court Nominations

F = 7 subjected to failed cloture motions in 108th Congress
4 = "1 of 4" that DEMs offered to let GOP choose which 3 to dump
S = Positive mention in Specter's May 9, 2005 speech

M = MOU of 14 will not vote against cloture
m = MOU of 14 makes no promise regarding cloture
R = Post-MOU, Reid indicates desire to filibuster

C = Out of committee & on the Senate's Executive Calendar
U = Unanimous consent to debate - date TBD
D = Democrats offer to debate - date TBD
v = Debate and vote scheduled
V = Vote -on the nomination- concluded

       --S  --  C--  Boyle, Terrence W.       (4th Cir)
       ---  -R  ---  Haynes, William James II (4th Cir)
       F4S  M-  CUV  Owen, Priscilla          (5th Cir)
       F-S  --  CUV  Griffin, Richard A.      (6th Cir)
       F-S  --  CUV  McKeague, David W.       (6th Cir)
       --S  --  -D-  Neilson, Susan Bieke     (6th Cir)
       F--  mR  ---  Saad, Henry W.           (6th Cir)
       F4S  mR  C--  Myers, William Gerry III (9th Cir)
       F4S  M-  CUV  Pryor, William H.        (11th Cir)
       F4S  M-  CUV  Brown, Janice Rogers     (D.C. Cir)
       --S  --  CUV  Griffith, Thomas B.      (D.C. Cir)
       ---  -R  ---  Kavanaugh, Brett M.      (D.C. Cir)

Last updated, June 21, 2005

Owen: Cloture passed 81-18 on May 24. Confirmed 55-43 on May 25.
Brown: Cloture passed 65-32 on June 7. Confirmed 56-43 on June 8.
Pryor: Cloture passed 67-32 on June 8. Confirmed 53-45 on June 9.
Griffin: Confirmed 95-0 on June 9.
McKeague: Confirmed 96-0 on June 9.
Griffith: Confirmed 73-24 on June 14.
Myers: Out of Committee on March 17.
Boyle: Out of Committee on June 16.

Additional source material

• List of Nominations in the 109th Congress Judiciary Committee
• Senate Executive Calendar (changes each business day)
• Specter's Speech of May 9, 2005 (109th Congress - Pages S4632 - S4636)
• Senators' Memorandum of Understanding - May 23, 2005
• Reid's agreement of May 24, 2005 (S5857)
• AP Report Reid wants to filibuster Haynes & Kavanaugh - May 28, 2005
• Fox News Report Reid will filibuster Saad & Myers - May 29, 2005
• Boyle was nominated to 4th Cir. in 1991 too, by GHWB

Actually he says he'll only back the ban if a judicial nominee who he finds acceptable is filibustered.

A failure to obtain cloture is the only context that the nuclear option (the ban) can play in. If a cloture vote is held, and cloture is obtained, all is well in the process.

I would think that a good gauge of "extraordinary circumstance" is that it represents a judge that the Congress would entertain impeachment proceedings against.

But taking it to the level of using the filibuster for a Supreme Court nominee takes it to a new level. One that should terrify a potential President.

It is a higher level, no question. But filibuster per se, setting a higher hurdle for a President to get over, is an imbalance of power against the President and in favor of the Senate.

I think the reason Hillary! and Kerry are willing to abuse cloture now is thatthey know cloture abuse would not be tolerated by the DEMs the same way it is tolerated by the GOP. IOW, they'd use the nuke in a heartbeat if the shoe was on the other foot. They are not bound to consistency in principle, every move is outcome oriented.

How can Hillary or Kerry support a filibuster of Supreme Court nominees.

They are in support of filibuster as a matter of principle. Clinton was a consistent NAY vote; Kerry was a consistent NOT PRESENT or NAY.

Cloture Motions on Circuit Court Nominations in 108th Congress
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/108.htm

Date   Nominee               Filed By  Date   Vote Result    DEM Aye's for Cloture
------ -------               --------  ------ -----------    ---------------------
Jul 21 David W. McKeague     Frist     Jul 22 53-44 No.162 F Miller, Nelson (NE)
Jul 21 Richard A. Griffin    Frist     Jul 22 54-44 No.161 F Miller, Nelson (NE)
Jul 20 Henry W. Saad         Frist     Jul 22 52-46 No.160 F Miller
Jul 16 William G. Myers      Frist     Jul 20 53-44 No.158 F Biden, Nelson (NE) 
May 14 Marcia G. Cooke       Kyl       May 18   UC         V
Nov 12 Janice R. Brown       Frist     Nov 14 53-43 No.452 F Miller, Nelson (NE)
Nov 12 Carolyn B. Kuhl       Frist     Nov 14 53-43 No.451 F Miller, Nelson (NE)
Nov 12 Priscilla R. Owen     Frist     Nov 14 53-42 No.450 F Miller, Nelson (NE)
Nov 04 William H. Pryor      Santorum  Nov 06 51-43 No.441 F Miller, Nelson (NE)
Oct 28 Charles W. Pickering  McConnell Oct 30 54-43 No.419 F Breaux, Miller
Jul 30 Carolyn B. Kuhl       Frist     Jul 31   UC         V
Jul 29 William H. Pryor      McConnell Jul 31 53-44 No.316 F Miller, Nelson (NE)
Jul 28 Miguel A. Estrada     Sessions  Jul 30 55-43 No.312 F Breaux, Miller, Nelsons (NE/FL)
Jul 25 Priscilla R. Owen     Hatch     Jul 29 53-43 No.308 F Miller, Nelson (NE)
Jun 27 Victor J. Wolski      Frist     Jul 08   UC         V
May 06 Priscilla R. Owen     McConnell May 08 52-45 No.144 F Miller, Nelson (NE)
May 06 Miguel A. Estrada     McConnell May 08 54-43 No.143 F Breaux, Miller, Nelsons (NE/FL)
May 01 Miguel A. Estrada     McConnell May 05 52-39 No.140 F Breaux, Nelsons (NE/FL)
Apr 29 Priscilla R. Owen     McConnell May 01 52-44 No.137 F Miller, Nelson (NE)
Mar 31 Miguel A. Estrada     Bennett   Apr 02 55-44 No.114 F Breaux, Miller, Nelsons (NE/FL)
Mar 13 Miguel A. Estrada     Frist     Mar 18 55-45 No. 56 F Breaux, Miller, Nelsons (NE/FL)
Mar 11 Miguel A. Estrada     Frist     Mar 13 55-42 No. 53 F Breaux, Miller, Nelsons (NE/FL)
Mar 04 Miguel A. Estrada     Frist     Mar 06 55-44 No. 40 F Breaux, Miller, Nelsons (NE/FL)

It is also likely that Warner would support "going nuclear", and others who signed onto "the deal" will certainly hold their seven Democrat counterparts' feet to the fire and urge them to keep their promise.

Nelson of Nebraska is another one. He consistently voted for cloture and seems to be an anti-filibuster force, even before the MOU signed on to by the gang of 14.

I agree with your prediction that there will be no filibuster. But I don't think the MOU was a planned stroke of genious by the GOP. It delayed action on resolving the filibuster issue as a matter of principle, and that was its only objective.

I hope the Surrendering Senate Seven realize THIS is the battle worthy of using the Constitutional Option.

Graham and Dewine have said that the nomination of Alito to Associate Justice postion of SCOTUS is not "extraordinary circumstances."

But Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, fired back Sunday, saying that if the Democrats staged a filibuster against Judge Alito or Judge Luttig because of their conservatism, "the filibuster will not stand."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/31/politics/politicsspecial1/31confirm.html

---

Gang-of-14 member Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH): "I can't believe anyone would believe this is a nominee that could be filibustered or that it would rise to the level of `extraordinary circumstances. If someone would filibuster, though, I would be prepared to vote to change the rules."

http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=10963

The documents weren't "easily dismissed" as forgeries. They were carefully studied and analyzed and only then were dismissed as forgeries.

The only reson the documents were not easily dismissed as forgeries is that CBS was close minded to facts and reasoned analysis.

I guess my being female is why I didn't know. However, if it's used in the UK, why should anyone be so familiar with it?

It's used in the USA too, and AFAIK, the innocuous meaning, e.g. double dipper at the chip dip, is the uncommon one.

Had you heard or used the term before today?

My guess is the idiot had no clue as to the meaning of what he said.

He knew exactly what image the phrase conjures. It was a nasty question straight from his nasty heart.

I agree with his opinion here for the most part, but I sincerely think it would be better in the long run if we had the filibuster battle and won it, so it wouldn't rear its ugly head again.

But the DEMs have to enagage in obstruction before the nuke can play.

I suspect "no filibuster" in the Alito nomination. The DEMs can either "lose" the seat; or they can lose both, the seat, and the filibuster tool.

... especially after conservatives have completely abandoned the original Constitution's intent that the President's nominees be given an up-or-down vote.

I'll hound you if you keep pushing that without the counter-argument.

There is a difference between a President pulling his own nomination based on pressure from his friends; and the Senate refusing to give a decision up or down on a nomination that the President and his supporters advance through the process.

There is no hypocracy in objecting to the latter while engaging in the former.

My "words". Would you point me to the post where I clearly agreed with you?

I said I misconstrued your words, and that I accept your statement that you don't clearly see the difference between objecting to Miers in such a way that she is withdrawn by the President, and objecting to Senate filibusters against a nominee.

What makes you think that I have "clearly" seen the difference?

Your words. Guess I misconstrued them. Oh well.

I haven't, I have chosen to ignore it for the sake of getting Alito on the court.

Oh. Okay.

I do not believe that Miers opponents were simply "urging" him to withdraw the nomination, but instead they were attempting to force the withdrawal through political pressure that threatened the presidency and control of congress if they did not get their way.

A number of individuals voiced opposition. That's part of the political process. But that exercise, which resulted in the President exercizing HIS prerogative to withdraw a nomination, is clearly different from the Senate refusing to dispose of a nomination that the President chooses to press ahead with.

You are free to see the two events as "the same" to the extent it paints conservatives as hypocrits. But in doing so, you open yourself up to being tared with the same charge, certainly in the eyes of the DEMs and liberals who oppose the Alito nomination. You are adopting their argument against this nominee.

To do so undermines the President and the GOP on this nomination. Holding that position is destructive to the cause of seating a strict constructionist via a transparent political process.

Do you feel that someone more conservative than Chaffee, Collins or Snowe could win a statewide election in those very blue states?

Yep. Promise to get pork from the FEDs (lots of welfare up here), and promise to get the social hot button issues back into the state venue, the LIBs control that.

But the Republican party apparatus in Maine is a closed club - McKernan and Company.

Schumer live on CSAN now

He is aiming to keep the same balance that O'Connor brought. "All options are on the table," in response to a question about filibuster.

When I read Harry Reid's comments yesterday calling for Rove's resignation, I called his office and left a message that he should resign from the Senate for being an obstructionist.

LOL! He is such a dope. I liked when, after the last failed cloture vote on Bolton, he admitted the DEMs had filibustered the nomination.