Heres what Republicans thought about filibustering judicial nominees........before they filibustered 86 of President Obamas nominees. BTW, in the history of the Senate 168 judicial nominees have been filibustered, 86 of them during Obamas presidency. 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). Lets get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the presidents nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter whos 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 Presidents 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.
Posted on: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:21:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015