11 Senate Republicans Join With The Democrats To Break McConnell's Judicial Filibuster

Here comes the judge

The "We Want Him To Fail" Crowd is still going full steam ahead, but the bloom is off the rose for that bunch too. In the history of the United States Senate no District Court Judge nominee has ever been denied appointment because of a filibuster. But that didn't stop right-wing extremists like Miss McConnell, Jim DeMint, David Diapers Vitter, and Richard Burr from trying. President Obama nominated Jack McConnell to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island and is widely considered extremely well qualified and even received bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee, being recommended for full Senate confirmation 11-7. It was the third time the Judiciary Committee approved him since Obama nominated him over a year ago. He was vehemently opposed by fascist organizations like the Heritage Foundation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because... well, basically because he's a Democrat and fascist organizations always oppose Democrats.

In the end Reid's cloture resolution-- shutting down the GOP filibuster-- passed 63-33 causing Majority Leader Reid to say that "This is going to make the atmosphere around here much more pleasant. There was ample time to make the case if you don't like [McConnell] personally for any reason, but this is a good man. The biggest problem he has is he's a trial lawyer, a very fine trial lawyer."

The Republicans who abandoned the extremists were Lamar Alexander (TN), Scott Brown (MA) Susan Collins (ME), Lindsey Graham (SC), Mark Kirk (IL), John McCain (AZ), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Olympia Snowe ME), John Thune (SD), Saxby Chambliss (GA) and Johnny Isakson (GA). Going all the way back to June 2005, Alexander had said, "I pledged, then and there, I would never filibuster any President’s judicial nominee, period. I might vote against them, but I will always see they came to a vote.” He had also stated in a floor debate two months earlier "I am beginning to think it is a train and that there is not much way to avoid a train wreck. The train wreck I am talking about is a threat by the minority to 'shut the Senate down in every way' if the majority adopts rules that will do what the Senate has done for 200 years, which is to vote up or down the President's appellate judicial nominees."

But Alexander's remarks certainly didn't stop the majority of Republicans in the Senate. In fact, neither did their own remarks! Here's what some of the Senate's most notorious hypocrites said back them, notorious hypocrites, I must add, who all voted to continue the filibuster:

Richard Burr (2005, on the Senate floor): "If anything, we are saying, for 214 years this institution, the Senate, had a gentleman's agreement, and that agreement was that the filibuster would never be used for judicial nominees. For 214 years they showed restraint, even though the rule allowed them to do it because they understood that the process was so important to make sure the best and the brightest found their way to the bench. For 214 years a handshake was all it took [...] What happened for 214 years? This debate is about principle. It is about allowing judicial nominees an up or-down vote on the Senate floor. And I believe it is an issue of fairness."

In fact the very next day, Senator Fairness was on the floor extolling up-or-down votes again: "[D]enying these patriotic Americans, of both parties, who seek to serve this country an up-or-down vote is simply not fair, and it certainly was not the intention of our Founding Fathers when they designed and created this very institution." And a month later, Burr was sticking to his guns: "There is no doubt in my mind the task includes ensuring that the Senate provides judicial nominees on [sic] up-or-down votes… Obstructing votes on Presidential nominees threatens the future of our judicial system and the nature of the Supreme Court.”

Yesterday he had amnesia and dug in on the filibuster. Same for Tom Coburn who, at a time when there was a heated debate over filibusters went on Kudlow's CNBC show (April 26, 2005) to pontificate that "The only deal [to be made with Senate Democrats] is that you’re not going to filibuster judicial nominees. There’s 200 years of history of that. It’s the right thing to do. It’s constitutional. And the fact is... we need to return to what the 200-year precedent has been. If you look at the Constitution, it says the president is to nominate these people, and the Senate is to advise and consent. That means you got to have a vote if they come out of committee. And that happened for 200 years.” On his own website a few days later he wrote, "For the first 214 years of our nation's history, the president has been able to nominate judges and expect that those nominees would receive the courtesy of a straight up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. During this time, the Senate operated within its Constitutional 'advice and consent' role. The president would nominate judges of his choice with advice from the Senate. The Senate would then either consent and confirm that nominee by a majority vote or reject that nominee... In 2003, however, obstructionist senators decided the system that was designed by our founders and practiced for 214 years was no longer fair. If the minority didn't like the judicial philosophy of one of President Bush's nominees they concluded it was their right to deny them the courtesy of an up or down vote through a filibuster. Instead of needing 51 votes to be confirmed, the minority unilaterally declared that judges who failed their liberal litmus test would need 60 votes to break their filibuster. Never before in American history has a judicial nominee with clear majority support been denied an up-or-down vote."

Yesterday avoided voting while his deranged Oklahoma colleague filibustered. His deranged Oklahoma colleague told the Tulsa World at that time that he “want[ed] to limit the current battle over the filibuster to judicial nominees and retain the practice on executive branch nominees and legislation. ‘I believe in the filibuster,’ Inhofe said. ‘I don’t think it should be used where it is contrary to the Constitution.’ On Cabinet posts and other executive branch positions filled by presidential appointment, Inhofe said, the filibuster is appropriate even though they, unlike judges, do not receive lifetime appointments. ‘The Constitution refers specifically to judges as opposed to military and executive branch nominations,’ he said.”

Nice to know our Senate is stocked up with so many blatant and unapologetic hypocrites. Though probably no one beats Miss McConnell (no relation to the nominee) who led the filibuster that was beaten yesterday but said back in 2005 that “Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote... It’s time to move away from advise and obstruct and get back to advise and consent. The stakes are high... The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent.  But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators.”

Once the filibuster was defeated Jack McConnell was confirmed 50-44 late yesterday. It was a strict party-line vote, every Democrat-- even Nelson-- voting AYE and every Republican voting NAY. So why did the 11 Republicans who voted to end cloture-- thereby guaranteeing confirmation, vote no on the nomination itself? Let the usually incoherent Senator McCain explain it:

[D]uring my 24 years in the United States Senate I have not once voted against cloture for a nominee to the district court, and I will not do so today. As a member of the ‘Gang of 14’ in 2005, I agreed that ‘Nominees should be filibustered only under extraordinary circumstances.’ The nomination of Mr. McConnell does not rise to a level of ‘extraordinary circumstances.’”

“However, I am deeply troubled by Mr. McConnell’s less than candid responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee, his liberal judicial philosophy, including his public antipathy toward private enterprise, and his strong political activism. For these reasons, I will not support his nomination.

“Shaping the judiciary through the appointment power is one of the most important and solemn responsibilities a President has and certainly one that has a profound and lasting impact. The President is entitled to nominate those whom he sees fit to serve on the Federal bench, and unless the nominee rises to ‘extraordinary circumstances,’ I have provided my Constitutional duty of ‘consent’ for most nominees.

“While I would not have chosen Mr. McConnell as a nominee to the Federal bench if I was in a position to nominate, I respect the President’s ability to do so and therefore will vote for the cloture motion on Mr. McConnell’s nomination, but will strongly oppose his nomination to the Federal bench.”

There ya go.