Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Archae

(46,262 posts)
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 03:20 PM Nov 2013

GOP senators on filibustering appointees...

Appointees from republican presidents, of course.

Democratic presidents? "Oh that's different!"

1. Mitch McConnell (KY)

“Any President’s 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 nation’s 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 won’t 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)

“I’ve 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 can’t 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 it’s 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.’ Hatch’s 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

19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
GOP senators on filibustering appointees... (Original Post) Archae Nov 2013 OP
Those damned ass hats can Faux pas Nov 2013 #1
lamar, you lying senator from tennessee....as they all are. spanone Nov 2013 #2
Boy, wait'll the media hears these quotes! Scuba Nov 2013 #3
Rachel, Lawrence malaise Nov 2013 #5
Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh not so much. Scuba Nov 2013 #6
I know, I 'm so excited about it I will hold my breath. Bandit Nov 2013 #7
k/r Dawson Leery Nov 2013 #4
That's the problem. Igel Nov 2013 #8
The GOP must be destroyed, utterly, forever nikto Nov 2013 #19
Mr. Pott meet Mr. Kettle Gothmog Nov 2013 #9
Priceless. moondust Nov 2013 #10
Can I use this Coolest Ranger Nov 2013 #11
I'm glad that they all agree with Harry Reid's actions. nt MrScorpio Nov 2013 #12
In 2005 the Republicans all had the Democrats' positions of 2013. former9thward Nov 2013 #13
Hypocricy at its finest. Laelth Nov 2013 #14
It is amazing how views change when one moves from Swede Atlanta Nov 2013 #15
Oh c'mon! These are extenuating circumstances: tofuandbeer Nov 2013 #16
there is some truth in your statement unfortunately.... beachbum bob Nov 2013 #17
It's very sad. I agree with you. But I am so amazed to be living during a time tofuandbeer Nov 2013 #18

Igel

(35,197 posts)
8. That's the problem.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:50 PM
Nov 2013

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)
19. The GOP must be destroyed, utterly, forever
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 03:56 AM
Nov 2013

Just kiddin'.




The world needs bad to go along with the good.
So the GOP endures.

former9thward

(31,804 posts)
13. In 2005 the Republicans all had the Democrats' positions of 2013.
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 11:58 AM
Nov 2013

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.

 

Swede Atlanta

(3,596 posts)
15. It is amazing how views change when one moves from
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 03:05 PM
Nov 2013

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.

 

beachbum bob

(10,437 posts)
17. there is some truth in your statement unfortunately....
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 08:18 AM
Nov 2013

race is an issue with too many people who still have such deep hatred and prejudices in their hearts

tofuandbeer

(1,314 posts)
18. It's very sad. I agree with you. But I am so amazed to be living during a time
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 03:17 AM
Nov 2013

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»GOP senators on filibuste...