A common argument making the rounds is that Senate Democrats only filibustered some of President Bush's judicial nominations because then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch violated Senate traditions with regard to blue slips. Let's assume for the moment that the charge against Hatch is accurate, does this explain the filibuster of Bush nominations? No. Filibusters were used to stall or block the confirmation of nominees for which blue slips were completely irrelevant, including Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen. Estrada was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, so there was no blue slip issue whatsoever. Owen was nominated to a Texas seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and both Texas Senators strongly supported her confirmation. Why, then, were they filibustered? Here's the case made by the NYT editorial board at the time:
Filibustering Judge Owen's confirmation would send the Bush administration two important messages: the president must stop packing the courts with ideologues, and he must show more respect for the Senate's role. . . .The other odd thing about the "Senate Democrats were just defending blue slips" argument is that it would actually seem to justify Senate Republican use of a filibuster for the same purpose. After all, if filibusters were an acceptable way to enforce the traditional blue slip policy before, they should no less acceptable today. And even if Senate Republicans opposed such filibusters in the past, would it be wrong for them to acquiesce to the new norm created by Senate Democrats? They opposed the filibuster for judicial nominations, but they lost that fight. Save for the few who (wrongly) maintained that such filibusters were "unconstitutional" (as opposed to "extraconstitutional," undemocratic, or merely unwise), I am not even sure the hypocrisy charge sticks all that much if the alternative is "unilateral disarmament."The filibuster is not a tool to be used lightly. But the Senate has been right to use it against the nomination of Miguel Estrada, who is hiding his views on legal issues. It should do the same to stop the once-rejected Judge Owen, and tell extreme conservatives in the Bush administration to stop trying to hijack the federal judiciary.
As I've made clear repeatedly, I think Senate Democrats were wrong to filibuster Bush judicial nominees, particularly on ideological grounds. I further believe Senate Republicans would be wrong to respond in kind, even to defend the blue slip. I believe filibusters have no place in the judicial confirmation process. A Senate minority should not block the confirmation of judicial nominees who enjoy majority support. Period. But I am not sure those who supported the use of such tactics have much basis to complain now that the shoe is on the other foot.
Related Posts (on one page):
See, this is precisely why the country inexorably rachets to the left. They are totally willing to do anything to advance their philosophy (such as it is), but when the right gains power, or has the opportunity to respond in kind, we get urged to make nice instead by people supposedly on our side. Is David Frum in the house?
The gains made by the left are therefore never rolled back when the right has the upper hand, and seldom stopped from being enacted when the left is in charge. No wonder that decades ago, the Republican party had gained the reputation as merely the tax collectors for the Democrat Party.
It's called having insufficient cojones to stand up for principle. It is after all much more important that we just all get along, isn't it?
A labor once famously admitted, "Negotiations are a give and take process. You give....and we take". No wonder they are nearly always the allies of the left.
The correct answer has been given several times on this thread: if you believe that filibustering is merely bad policy, then yes, you are free to use it yourself if you cannot get it forbidden altogether.
But, if you believe (or even argue) that the filibuster is unconstitutional, then you can avail yourself of it, whatever the prevailing standards are. Unconstitutional tactics are like war-crimes: even if the other guy is using 'em, it's still wrong.
From what I remember both parties modified blue slips for their partisan advantage. The only chairman not to do that was Senator James Eastland.
Many readers will find it easier to take seriously arguments concerning the Democratic Party that are expressed in standard English. Causing an educated reader's eye to grate on "Democrat Party" deflects attention from substance.
I look at it this way: suppose you are a boxer, stepping into the ring prepared to fight by Marquis of Queensbury rules, and your opponent enters with a baseball bat with nails imbedded in it, after already having bought off the ref (the MSM). You can always claim to been the more honorable fighter as they carry you off to the ICU, if you live.
This is part of a much larger issue - if you are always willing to fight honorably against opponents who have no honor (at least none we might recognize as such), then you will nearly always lose in the real world.
The left sees this struggle as a war against evil (conservatives), not as an honorable debate between equals to find effective solutions to problems. They see the constitution as a "living" document, i.e., whatever they want it to mean. You cannot win against such an opponent over the long haul by playing totally by your own strict rules, because for them there are none.
Somewhere along the line, we are going to have to fight back, doing whatever is necessary to win. We have for two centuries been totally insulated from reality by having an ocean on either side of us to keep the barbarians at bay. Now they are gaining footholds from the inside, and by allowing them to play the game without the same rules we hold ourselves to, we will also surely lose.
It would be so wonderful if we could actually win with honor. Somehow I think that is purely wishful thinking.
And I certainly can't see the inapplicability of the hypocrisy charge. The alternative to hypocrisy is always unilateral disarmamament. A party, to avoid being a hypocrite, doesn't take advantage of an opportunity. That's called principle. As distinct from hypocrisy.
Politicians of both parties are interested in ends and frequently hypocritical. But they are properly called on it by outsiders.
The term "Democrat Party" has been used for over 75 years; its aesthetics are certainly subject to debate, but the phrase is not non-standard English, it's just the wrong name for the party. And an elitist appeal to the educated reader's love of standard English reinforces the point underlying the misnomer, as the "Democrat Party" moniker was adopted to point out how elitist the Democratic Party had become and how it strayed from its Jacksonian principles.
As Mick and Keith observed, however, you can't always get what you want.
But what? But you really aren't that principled? That much is obvious.
If it really is a principle, you stick with it regardless of whether or not it is convenient.
In my eyes, your inconsistency means you should just shut up next time you have a Republican President and not pretend like you believe in the "principle" that nominees get an up and down vote.
In case you are confused, a true principle is not something that is discarded at the first sign of mere inconvenience, as you are trying to justify now.
This is the comment that should have ended the post. If you believe in this principle, this is the relevant conclusion.
I am not sure what you mean by "basis to complain." Does this mean that even if Republican's in the Senate by engaging in wrong behavior, that it is okay?
What does it mean to say that a behavior is "wrong" if no one has a basis to complain about that behavior? Exactly WHO does have a basis to complain??
Furthermore, whether or not there is a "basis to complain" I think there is plenty of room to point out the basic truth. You are unprincipled if you, as a Senator, stood up and demanded a vote on some sort of principle, but now reject that position when it turns out to be even slightly inconvenient.
I think that even people without "basis to complain" (perhaps because they do not share the alleged principle in question) can in fact point out the objective truth. Here is someone who says that something is an important principle (whether or not I agree with him) and who discards that important principle when even slightly inconvenient.
If that person is unprincipled on this issue, aren't they likely to unprincipled in other areas? I may not have a "basis to complain" but isn't that just the plain objective truth?
Sheesh, you'd think that the answer to your question could be found through the use of basic deduction. Adler said, "But I am not sure those who supported the use of such tactics have much basis to complain." Therefore, he's clearly implying that those who didn't support the use of such tactics in the past do have a basis to complain. (*)
(*) Note: as a matter of formal logic, if A then B is not equivalent to if not A then not B. But in ordinary conversation, the former often is used to imply the latter.
I don't see what's wrong with someone saying that a pro-abortion judicial candidate should be opposed merely because such a candidate believes that child murder is a fundamental yet unwritten right.
I don't see what's wrong with saying that a judicial candidate that believes that affirmative action policies that discriminate on the basis of race should be opposed because such views are racist.
If Senator Kennedy can rant about back alley abortions, I don't know why others don't rant about child murder and racism. There's nothing stopping them.
I would use every tool in the arsenal to oppose people who want to destroy the Constitution with a "living" interpretation.
Why would it be wrong for Republicans to "respond" in kind? Honestly, what is the reason, given the precedent that the Democrats established?
If you are referring to Fortas isn't that an example of a bi-partisan filibuster? If not, then when did the Republicans filibuster?
Didn't happen in the 90s. A cloture petition isn't a true sign of a filibuster. In fact, if you look at the cloture petitions from the 1990s you'll see the senators who signed onto it were Lott, Hatch, &company. Now this does not mean that Republicans didn't block Clinton's judicial picks. They certainly did, but they used holds, blue slips, and general delaying tactics, not filibusters.
Now there might be a Republican filibuster during the Carter administration but I doubt it. When else between the Fortas nomination of 1968 (LBJ) and the several circuit court nominations of 2003-2007 (Bush II) would Republicans filibuster? Not Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or Bush I. That leaves Carter and Clinton.
Congratulations on an excellent strawman! note the word in bold. to show that a claim of "some" is false, you can't point to a couple of instances. you would need to exclude them all. it is entirely plausible that they filibustered some nominees on the blue slip policy and some nominess on merit or ideology.
.
Majority leader Frist refused to call for votes on GWB-nominated, out of committee nominees, in the 109th Congress.
.
The Republicans are already hypocrites on this "they deserve an up or down vote" point. I say continue the Senate tradition; and of course, use the tools that the Democratic party initiated and endorsed in the 108th &109th Congresses.
I understand your logic and understood it before you bothered to lay it out.
It seems to me that the more powerful point is that, according to Adler, it would be "wrong" of Republicans to filibuster. If those who believe they should be principled have a basis to complain, why does it matter if some other person does not have a basis to complain? It appears irrelevant to me. The bottom-line is that the Republicans are committing a wrong that someone has a basis to complain about.
Anyway, rather that interpret Adler as saying something that is irrelevant (X doesn't have a basis to complain about Y's unprincipled behavior, although Z does. If Z has a basis to complain about X's wrong behavior, it seems to follow that the bottom-line is that X shouldn't engage in that behavior) I initially interpreted him as excusing the behavior in question. Especially as he put the "no basis to complain" point in the more powerful position in the paragraph relative to that would be "wrong."
Also, whether anyone had a basis to complain, being unprincipled is, well, unprincipled.
For what it is worth, I personally don't think there is anything wrong with filibusters of judicial nominees. While there constitutionality is unclear and I think the Democrats should declare them unconstitutional, and not not just for judicial nominees, via the poorly named nuclear option, I think that for now filibusters are part of the rules.
But, for those Republicans who were screaming about the principle of judicial nominees deserving a vote, I will simple observe they are being unprincipled now when they don't observe that principle merely because it is inconvenient. Whether I have a "basis to complain" or not, that this is unprincipled behavior is an objective fact.
Arthur - you accused the first guy who used "democrat party" of poor command of english, and you've followed that sally with this obnoxious bit of invective. Both of your posts were content-free in other respects.
Is this your usual approach to dialogue, or are you just having a bad day?
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.