ConfirmThem

By DanCT Posted in Senate Rules — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

On the floor Wednesday, Senator Hatch (R-UT) made some comments that were calm and reflective, yet pointed:

Mr. President, many of our fellow citizens might be surprised to learn that the Senators they elect and send to Washington are refusing to vote on judicial nominations. They might share the sentiment of former Democratic Leader Senator Tom Daschle, when he said in 1999: “I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination.�

A short time later, Daschle orchestrated a series of unprecedented "votes against voting". When the clamor over Daschle's innovation grew loud enough to be heard by his constituents back home, they said: "It is simply baffling that he thought we would re-elect a Senator who would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination."

Hatch continued:

Some are so desperate to claim even one, single, solitary precedent for what they are doing that they stretch, twist, and morph the word filibuster beyond all recognition. They want the word filibuster to mean so many things, that it ultimately means virtually nothing at all. ...Judicial filibuster defenders have claimed that when the Senate voted to end debate on past judicial nominations, we were actually filibustering those nominations. They want Americans to believe that ending debate then justifies refusing to end debate now. Or they claimed that when the Senate voted to confirm judicial nominations in the past, we were actually filibustering those nominations. They want Americans to believe that confirming nominations then justifies refusing to confirm them now.

Those bizarre claims focus on what happens here on the Senate floor, at the end of the judicial confirmation process. Sometimes, judicial filibuster defenders have focused instead on what happens in the Judiciary Committee, an earlier phase in the process. Some appear willing to try anything to create a precedent for their filibusters. Some even claim that any nomination which is not ultimately confirmed, no matter what the reason, no matter what the step in the process, has been filibustered.

Giving a word any meaning you want may help make any argument you want to make, but it does not make that argument legitimate. This gimmick may have some public relations punch....

Unfortunately, the raping of language for short term political gain does indeed have public relations punch. As he duly noted, the filibustering issue is completely off the radar screen for most Americans. For example, think about Bob Shmob, who just doesn't care for following politics and knows absolutely nothing about the drama unfolding in the Senate. Waiting for his plane to board, he overhears Senator Shlabotnik (D-BA) on CNN: "These arrogant Republicans are engaged in an unprecedented abuse of power. They think that just because they have a majority in the Senate, they are entitled to speak for the Senate. But the revered and 200+ year old constitutional system of checks and balances demands minority rule in the Senate when it comes to confirming judges. The traditional mechanism for those minority rights has been the filibuster. The founders gave the power to appoint judges to the Senate instead of the House because they the filibuster makes the Senate a cooling saucer, a place for intelligent debate. There is no debating in the House. Whatever the speaker says, goes. That's what the GOP wants to do now in the Senate. Look, the way the Senate is set up, the minority party actually represents MORE people than the majority party. That's why it is so important for the minority party to have the final say in appointing judges. When the Democratic party is in the minority in the Senate, blocking nominations is called the 'filibuster.' When you hear Republicans fire off all these lies about how they never filibustered circuit court nominations, it's just a bunch of poppycock. They repeatedly blocked Clinton's nominees when we were in the minority; that's why the confirmation rate for Clinton's circuit court nominees was only 86%, while the rate for Bush's judges is 95%. Yeah, some Republicans point out the irrelevant fact that only 53% of Bush's CIRCUIT court nominees have been confirmed, but judges are judges, and they should stop whining." Bob thinks, "Ya' know, this guy is full of it. Yeah, yeah, I know these arrogant Republicans are engaged in an unprecedented power grab by trying to change the 200 year tradition of minority rule in the Senate, but Democrats do the same thing. Politicians are all full of hot air. I wish those Republicans would quit whining."