General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGOP senators on filibustering appointees...
Appointees from republican presidents, of course.
Democratic presidents? "Oh that's different!"
1. Mitch McConnell (KY)
Any Presidents judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote (5/19/05).
Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate (5/22/05).
2. John Cornyn (TX)
[F]ilibusters of judicial nominations are uniquely offensive to our nations constitutional design (6/4/03).
[M]embers of this distinguished body have long and consistently obeyed an unwritten rule not to block the confirmation of judicial nominees by filibuster. But, this Senate tradition, this unwritten rule has now been broken and it is crucial that we find a way to ensure the rule wont be broken in the future (6/5/03).
3. Lamar Alexander (TN)
If there is a Democratic President and I am in this body, and if he nominates a judge, I will never vote to deny a vote on that judge (3/11/03).
I would never filibuster any President's judicial nominee. Period (6/9/05).
4. John McCain (AZ)
Ive always believed that [judicial nominees deserve yes-or-no votes]. There has to be extraordinary circumstances to vote against them. Elections have consequences (6/18/13).
5. Chuck Grassley (IA)
It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60 (2/11/03).
[W]e cant find anywhere in the Constitution that says a supermajority is needed for confirmation (5/8/05).
6. Saxby Chambliss (GA)
I believe [filibustering judicial nominees] is in violation of the Constitution (4/13/05).
7. Lindsey Graham (SC)
I think filibustering judges will destroy the judiciary over time. I think its unconstitutional (5/23/05).
8. Johnny Isakson (GA)
I will vote to support a vote, up or down, on every nominee. Understanding that, were I in the minority party and the issues reversed, I would take exactly the same position because this document, our Constitution, does not equivocate (5/19/05).
9. James Inhofe (OK)
This outrageous grab for power by the Senate minority is wrong and contrary to our oath to support and defend the Constitution (3/11/03).
10. Mike Crapo (ID)
[T]he Constitution requires the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees (5/25/05).
11 . Richard Shelby (AL)
Why not allow the President to do his job of selecting judicial nominees and let us do our job in confirming or denying them? Principles of fairness call for it and the Constitution requires it (11/12/03).
12. Orrin Hatch (UT)*
Filibustering judicial nominees is unfair, dangerous, partisan, and unconstitutional (1/12/05).
*Hatch claims he still opposes filibusters of judicial nominees and often votes present instead of no on cloture votes. But as Drew noted: Because ending a filibuster requires 60 yes votes, voting present is identical to voting no. Hatchs decision to vote present is an affirmative decision to continue the filibuster.
- See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/twelve-republicans-who-broke-their-pledge-oppose-judicial-filibusters#sthash.qlgaGLKM.dpuf
Faux pas
(14,681 posts)go scratch. They deserve what they're getting in spades.
spanone
(135,844 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)malaise
(269,046 posts)Jon Stewart and Colbert
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Bandit
(21,475 posts)Righttttt!!!
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Igel
(35,317 posts)Because the calls for a "straight up and down vote" were met with catcalls and derision.
Doesn't matter what party was in charge of the Senate. They hated the filibuster because it gave the minority party power. The minority loved it because it gave them power.
When the nuclear option was first floated, it was anathema. It would cause a lot of ill will that wouldn't go away, and a heavy price would be paid for it. It was unethical, immoral, and would cause those employing it to gain wait and lose hair. In a truly democratic Senate, the nuclear option couldn't be used.
Then again, that's when it was being floated by (R). Now, it's "in a truly Democratic Senate, the nuclear option has to be used."
nikto
(3,284 posts)Just kiddin'.
The world needs bad to go along with the good.
So the GOP endures.
Gothmog
(145,303 posts)The fact that these idiots are upset about filibuster reform is amusing
moondust
(19,991 posts)K/R
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)to counter GOP trolls I see on facebook?
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)former9thward
(32,019 posts)The 2005 Democrats all had the Republicans' positions of 2013. Which indicates this is an issue of political power as opposed to some overriding principle. Nothing wrong with that but it is what it is.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Here's my response to their current whining.
-Laelth
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)the majority to the minority.
I guess they didn't think we would have records of their previous expressions about the filibuster related to judicial nominations.
tofuandbeer
(1,314 posts)he's not a white president!
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)race is an issue with too many people who still have such deep hatred and prejudices in their hearts
tofuandbeer
(1,314 posts)that the US elected an African American as FRIGGIN PRESIDENT! I still can't believe it.
I remember being in my car after walking my dog at a marina in San Pedro. We got in the car, I turned on the radio and heard the celebration: it was around 8pm; I thought, "Oh wow! He already won!"
...anyway,
it's definitely a topic that people will be asking us about decades from now.
Sorry to sidetrack the topic.