You make the call
For the record, I believe that, regardless of which political party is in control of the Senate, filibusters of judicial nominees are wrong. But compare the following statement of Senator Patrick Leahy on yesterday's "Fox News Sunday" to his remarks from the Congressional Record referenced by Chris Wallace. He is backpedaling vigorously and, I think, somewhat disingenuously from the substance of his original remarks. Yesterday:
"WALLACE: All right. Let's turn, if we can, to judges. I want to put something up on the screen that you said back in June of 1998. You said, 'I have stated over and over again that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported, that I felt the Senate should do its duty.' Then, in September 1999, you spoke again of filibusters: 'I think that is unfair to the judiciary, it is unfair to the nominees, and, frankly, it demeans the Senate.' Question, why were filibusters so terrible back in 1999, but they're legitimate now?
"LEAHY: Well, let me -- I can't see your screen, but I listened to what you said. And you said, I've stated over and over again -- and I imagine said -- dot, dot, dot -- that I object and fight against these filibusters. It's very convenient -- and I suspect you got this from the Republicans, that you left off what I said in there. What I said, I would refuse to put an anonymous hold on any judge. What I was talking about was the pocket filibusters in my quotes from The New York Times and the material I put in the Congressional Record at the time show very clearly, I was talking about the pocket filibusters, the anonymous holds the Republicans were doing.
"You remember that they filibustered 61 of President Clinton's judges. If they had one, if they had even one Republican who opposed them, they would stay bottled up, they'd never have a hearing, they'd never have a vote. Those were pocket filibusters requiring 100 senators to get a judge through.
* * *
"And on the occasion we broke through and actually got someone on the floor, they still filibustered them. In fact, Bill Frist voted to continue a filibuster. I guess it makes a difference who was president.
"WALLACE: Well, some people would say that's true for you too. In fact, what you said -- and we did have the dot, dot, dot; talking about the anonymous holds. I guess I would make two points there. First of all, under Bill Frist's new compromise, he would do away with the anonymous holds. He would guarantee that every nominee would get out of committee and get an up-or-down vote on the floor. But in addition, you did say that you were against the anonymous holds and that you would object and fight against any filibuster on any judge. You said that the Senate should do its duty and that there should be an up-or-down vote. Now my question is: Why did you feel that then but you don't feel it now?
"LEAHY: I was talking about the committee."
Let's see what the Congressional Record "clearly" shows, with extended quotes so I am not accused of unfairly "dot-dot-dot"ting the Senator's remarks out of context. And I didn't get this from Republicans; it comes from the Congressional Record, June 18, 1998:
"If Senators are opposed to any judge, bring them up and vote against them. But don't do an anonymous hold, which diminishes the credibility and respect of the whole U.S. Senate.
"I have had judicial nominations by both Democrat and Republican Presidents that I intended to oppose. But I fought like mad to make sure they at least got a chance to be on the floor for a vote.
"I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would refuse to put an anonymous hold on any judge; that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty.
"If we don't like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her down. But don't hold them in this anonymous unconscionable limbo, because in doing that, the minority of Senators really shame all Senators."
And from the Congressional Record, October 14, 1998:
"The Majority Leader has yet to call up the nomination of Judge Richard Paez to the Ninth Circuit. That nomination was first received by the Senate back in January 1996, almost three years ago. His nomination was delayed at every stage and this is now the judicial nomination that has been pending the longest on the Senate Executive Calendar this year, seven months. Over the last few days the Majority Leader has repeatedly indicated that he would be calling up this nomination, but he has not done so.
"I have heard rumors that some on the Republican side planned to filibuster this nomination. I cannot recall a judicial nomination being successfully filibustered. I do recall earlier this year when the Republican Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and I noted how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination. During this year’s long-delayed debate on the confirmation of Margaret Morrow, Senator HATCH said: 'I think it is a travesty if we ever start getting into a game of filibustering judges.' Well, it appears that travesty was successfully threatened by some on the Republican side of the aisle and kept the Majority Leader from fulfilling his commitment to call up the nomination for a confirmation vote.
* * *
"In his 1997 Year-End Report, Chief Justice Rehnquist focused again on the problem of 'too few judges and too much work.' He noted the vacancy crisis and the persistence of scores of judicial emergency vacancies and observed: 'Some current nominees have been waiting a considerable time for a Senate Judiciary Committee vote or a final floor vote. The Senate confirmed only 17 judges in 1996 and 36 in 1997, well under the 101 judges it confirmed in 1994.' He went on to note: 'The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.'
"That is good advice. That is what this Senate should do, take up these nominations and vote them up or vote them down. I believe that if the Senate were given an opportunity to have a fair vote on the merits of the nomination of Judge Richard Paez or Timothy Dyk or any of the 21 judicial nominations pending on the Senate Executive Calendar, they would be confirmed. Perhaps that is why we are not being allowed to vote."
And from the Congressional Record, October 1, 1999:
"I do not deny each Senator his or her prerogative as a Member of this Senate. After 25 years here, I think I have demonstrated--and I certainly know in my heart--I have great respect for this institution and for its traditions, for all the men and women with whom I have served, the hundreds of men and women with whom I have served over the years in both parties. But this use of secret holds for extended periods to doom a nomination from ever being considered by the Senate is wrong, unfair, and beneath us.
"Who is it who is afraid to vote on these nominations? Who is it who is hiding their opposition and obstructing these nominees? Can it be they are such a minority, they know that if it comes to a fair vote, these good men and women will be confirmed?
"So rather than to allow a fair vote, they will keep it from coming to a vote. I would bet you that the same people who are holding these nominations back from a vote will go home on the Fourth of July and other holidays and give great speeches about the democracy of this country and how important democracy is and why we have to allow people to vote and express the will of the people--except in the Senate and, apparently, except if you are a minority or a woman.
* * *
"There is never a justification to deny any of these judicial nominees a fair up-or-down vote."
In fairness, Senator Leahy, did reference "anonymous holds" that occur when nominees are still in committee. However, he still called for a "fair up-or-down vote." His repeated calls for an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate make clear that his answer yesterday was intentionally evasive.
"WALLACE: All right. Let's turn, if we can, to judges. I want to put something up on the screen that you said back in June of 1998. You said, 'I have stated over and over again that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported, that I felt the Senate should do its duty.' Then, in September 1999, you spoke again of filibusters: 'I think that is unfair to the judiciary, it is unfair to the nominees, and, frankly, it demeans the Senate.' Question, why were filibusters so terrible back in 1999, but they're legitimate now?
"LEAHY: Well, let me -- I can't see your screen, but I listened to what you said. And you said, I've stated over and over again -- and I imagine said -- dot, dot, dot -- that I object and fight against these filibusters. It's very convenient -- and I suspect you got this from the Republicans, that you left off what I said in there. What I said, I would refuse to put an anonymous hold on any judge. What I was talking about was the pocket filibusters in my quotes from The New York Times and the material I put in the Congressional Record at the time show very clearly, I was talking about the pocket filibusters, the anonymous holds the Republicans were doing.
"You remember that they filibustered 61 of President Clinton's judges. If they had one, if they had even one Republican who opposed them, they would stay bottled up, they'd never have a hearing, they'd never have a vote. Those were pocket filibusters requiring 100 senators to get a judge through.
* * *
"And on the occasion we broke through and actually got someone on the floor, they still filibustered them. In fact, Bill Frist voted to continue a filibuster. I guess it makes a difference who was president.
"WALLACE: Well, some people would say that's true for you too. In fact, what you said -- and we did have the dot, dot, dot; talking about the anonymous holds. I guess I would make two points there. First of all, under Bill Frist's new compromise, he would do away with the anonymous holds. He would guarantee that every nominee would get out of committee and get an up-or-down vote on the floor. But in addition, you did say that you were against the anonymous holds and that you would object and fight against any filibuster on any judge. You said that the Senate should do its duty and that there should be an up-or-down vote. Now my question is: Why did you feel that then but you don't feel it now?
"LEAHY: I was talking about the committee."
Let's see what the Congressional Record "clearly" shows, with extended quotes so I am not accused of unfairly "dot-dot-dot"ting the Senator's remarks out of context. And I didn't get this from Republicans; it comes from the Congressional Record, June 18, 1998:
"If Senators are opposed to any judge, bring them up and vote against them. But don't do an anonymous hold, which diminishes the credibility and respect of the whole U.S. Senate.
"I have had judicial nominations by both Democrat and Republican Presidents that I intended to oppose. But I fought like mad to make sure they at least got a chance to be on the floor for a vote.
"I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would refuse to put an anonymous hold on any judge; that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty.
"If we don't like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her down. But don't hold them in this anonymous unconscionable limbo, because in doing that, the minority of Senators really shame all Senators."
And from the Congressional Record, October 14, 1998:
"The Majority Leader has yet to call up the nomination of Judge Richard Paez to the Ninth Circuit. That nomination was first received by the Senate back in January 1996, almost three years ago. His nomination was delayed at every stage and this is now the judicial nomination that has been pending the longest on the Senate Executive Calendar this year, seven months. Over the last few days the Majority Leader has repeatedly indicated that he would be calling up this nomination, but he has not done so.
"I have heard rumors that some on the Republican side planned to filibuster this nomination. I cannot recall a judicial nomination being successfully filibustered. I do recall earlier this year when the Republican Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and I noted how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination. During this year’s long-delayed debate on the confirmation of Margaret Morrow, Senator HATCH said: 'I think it is a travesty if we ever start getting into a game of filibustering judges.' Well, it appears that travesty was successfully threatened by some on the Republican side of the aisle and kept the Majority Leader from fulfilling his commitment to call up the nomination for a confirmation vote.
* * *
"In his 1997 Year-End Report, Chief Justice Rehnquist focused again on the problem of 'too few judges and too much work.' He noted the vacancy crisis and the persistence of scores of judicial emergency vacancies and observed: 'Some current nominees have been waiting a considerable time for a Senate Judiciary Committee vote or a final floor vote. The Senate confirmed only 17 judges in 1996 and 36 in 1997, well under the 101 judges it confirmed in 1994.' He went on to note: 'The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.'
"That is good advice. That is what this Senate should do, take up these nominations and vote them up or vote them down. I believe that if the Senate were given an opportunity to have a fair vote on the merits of the nomination of Judge Richard Paez or Timothy Dyk or any of the 21 judicial nominations pending on the Senate Executive Calendar, they would be confirmed. Perhaps that is why we are not being allowed to vote."
And from the Congressional Record, October 1, 1999:
"I do not deny each Senator his or her prerogative as a Member of this Senate. After 25 years here, I think I have demonstrated--and I certainly know in my heart--I have great respect for this institution and for its traditions, for all the men and women with whom I have served, the hundreds of men and women with whom I have served over the years in both parties. But this use of secret holds for extended periods to doom a nomination from ever being considered by the Senate is wrong, unfair, and beneath us.
"Who is it who is afraid to vote on these nominations? Who is it who is hiding their opposition and obstructing these nominees? Can it be they are such a minority, they know that if it comes to a fair vote, these good men and women will be confirmed?
"So rather than to allow a fair vote, they will keep it from coming to a vote. I would bet you that the same people who are holding these nominations back from a vote will go home on the Fourth of July and other holidays and give great speeches about the democracy of this country and how important democracy is and why we have to allow people to vote and express the will of the people--except in the Senate and, apparently, except if you are a minority or a woman.
* * *
"There is never a justification to deny any of these judicial nominees a fair up-or-down vote."
In fairness, Senator Leahy, did reference "anonymous holds" that occur when nominees are still in committee. However, he still called for a "fair up-or-down vote." His repeated calls for an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate make clear that his answer yesterday was intentionally evasive.
posted by Hal | 2:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home