by Edward
John Cole on RedState tries valiantly to save the GOP's right to resuscitate the recently departed talking point that all Bush's nominees deserve an up or down vote in the Senate, but it's the most faithless sort of wishful thinking and as such deserves debunking. In response to this post by Kos, using the GOP's own words against them, Cole takes out his hair-splitter and tries to find a difference in how the GOP derailed Harriet's turn before the Judiciary Committee:
When Republicans and conservatives speak of a desire for an up or down vote for judicial nominees, it is born out of the frustration of the recent past in which nominees were bottled up in committee in perpetuity, were never given hearings, were never given a vote, and simply had their nomination blocked through procedural maneuvering. In fairness, this occurred under both Republican and Democratic Presidents, and in Senates led by Republicans and Democrats.
But that is not what happened in the Miers case, and to assert otherwise is to engage in a flight of fancy. A desire for an up or down vote for judicial nominees is in no way anathema to the desire (and, I might add, right) to loudly voice one's displeasure with a nominee.
Harriet Miers was nominated to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. She was given a date for confirmation hearings (they were to begin on November 7th), she had meetings with Senators, she was filling out questionnaires for the Judiciary Committee. She would, one could safely assume, have had a vote in the Judiciary Committee at the commencement of the confirmation hearings, and predicated on the outcome of that vote, a vote would have been held in the Senate at large.
In other words, she was going to get her 'up or down vote.' There were no calls to 'blue slip' her, there was no move to filibuster her (indeed, the Gang of 14 stated they would break any filibuster attempts), there were no attempts at procedural moves to block her nomination, and she was not going to be bottlenecked in committee forever.
What's most laughable about this is this bit: "she was going to get her 'up or down vote.' " It's laughable because web site's had been set up and the call went far and wide that what the base wanted was not an up or down vote but her nomination to be withdrawn. In fact, on the Withdraw Miers website, they list the folks calling for the withdrawal and list the Senators who had expressed "Reservations," long before the hearings had offered Harriet a chance to answer her critics, including
Senator Rick Santorum
Senator Sam Brownback
Senator Trent Lott
Senator George Allen
Senator Lindsey Graham
Senator Jeff Sessions
Senator David Vitter
Senator John Ensign
Senator John Thune
So who exactly is it in the GOP that still believes the President has the right to have his choice, his chosen nominee, receive an up or down vote? Cole would like you to believe they never stopped believing this was the proper process, but the evidence suggests otherwise.
it's an absolute that absolutes are only really absolute when they absolutely benefit your side of the argument.
Posted by: cleek | October 28, 2005 at 11:25 AM
Me. They can still have an up or down vote if they want to; not sure that it would accomplish anything, but, you know, demand it if ritual's your thing. While you're at it, demand that contestants withdrawn from Olympic gymnastic events still be judged on their performance.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | October 28, 2005 at 11:46 AM
Oh, and keep an eye on those Eastern Block judges.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | October 28, 2005 at 11:50 AM
I don't see much if any inconsistency on the "up or down vote" thing itself -- asking the president to withdraw the pick is different from a minority of senators filibustering her in the expectation the majority would confirm if allowed to.
ISTM that the real issue re hypocrisy regards the appropriate amount of deference to be shown to the Prez's pick -- some of those who were saying "he's the president, he should get who he wants" changed their tune.
So, what do people here think of Alito?
Posted by: kenB | October 28, 2005 at 11:59 AM
I've never thought that, kenB. I have thought he gets his pick, being the president, but that it's best to make a good pick. The choice may not be one that'd pass committee, but it should be a choice that members of your own party regard as stupid. If Miers had been well-regarded as a thinker and NOT had a law background, I'd have been much more kindly disposed toward the choice.
Really, this was baffling. The last choice got as close to wide acclaim as I think it's possible to get; this was the other end of the spectrum.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | October 28, 2005 at 12:22 PM
Max S. observes rightly:
* No more "up or down vote" claptrap from the wingnuts. They advocated her pre-emptive withdrawal, so there is no onus against a committee preventing any appointment from coming to the Senate floor, and no gabble about any nominee having a right to a floor vote;
* No more denunciations of questioning nominees on the thoughts that would drive future decisions. The wingnuts favored proctological levels of probing for Miers;
* No more denunciations of so-called liberal litmus tests, since the Bush loyalists were clearly testifying, admittedly to dubious effect, as to Miers' true colors;
* No more attacks on considerations of diversity in appointments, since Miers was clearly a diversity pick, and touted as such by the Bushists.
I've always thought of the dems as born corrupt and the repubs as serial hypocrites about it.
Posted by: judson | October 28, 2005 at 12:38 PM
I see a big difference between creating an environment where a nominee feels she has no choice but to withdraw her name and keeping a nomination bottled up in committee.
to me, the first is fair game and the second is an abuse of process.
so i think that Edward_ is overreaching a smidge.
Posted by: Francis | October 28, 2005 at 01:34 PM
I see a big difference between creating an environment where a nominee feels she has no choice but to withdraw her name
If only that's what happened. Via Sully:
Posted by: Edward_ | October 28, 2005 at 01:53 PM
Edward,
that sounds like a "flip flop", to me. first Bush was for Miers, then he was against her. very un-steady.
Posted by: cleek | October 28, 2005 at 02:06 PM
On this, at least, cleek and I agree. This was...um...a complete CF.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | October 28, 2005 at 02:16 PM
Slart, rest assured I wasn't referring to you or anyone else here. And anyway, I'd have more respect for someone who made that switch than for the Hugh Hewitt types who stuck with the president in the face of all the facts.
BTW I just saw this quote on Hotline from a White House aide that brought a smile to my face:
Can't decide if this was a sly reference or just a coincidental echo of past statements about unanticipatedness.
Posted by: kenB | October 28, 2005 at 02:32 PM
kenB, I didn't think that you were referring to me personally, just that you've perhaps oversimplified. As in: yes, the President may nominate as he pleases, but that doesn't mean we have to sit on our hands when he makes choices that are...damnit, the engineer in me keeps coming up with "suboptimal".
Posted by: Slartibartfast | October 28, 2005 at 03:13 PM
May I be the first - at least on this thread - to put Patrick Fitzgerald's name in nomination?
Posted by: dr ngo | October 28, 2005 at 04:09 PM
PF as SCOTUS nom? Why not? This whole thing could hardly get any more surreal anyway.
Posted by: Edward_ | October 28, 2005 at 04:22 PM
"the President may nominate as he pleases"
And the Senate may confirm or not, as it pleases. Justices are not cabinet members, and no deference at all need be given. Filling the judiciary is a responsibility shared by the President and the Senate, and neither the "advise" nor the "consent" in "advise & consent" are matters of trivial courtesy, or emergency powers to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. The Senate's responsibilities, and frankly perogatives ("advise"), in judicial appointments are as ordinary and assumed as those in passing legislation or ratifying treaties.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | October 28, 2005 at 05:21 PM
kenB: So who exactly is it in the GOP that still believes...
Slarti: Me.
ObPedant: Correct me if I'm wrong but you're now an independent, right?
Posted by: Anarch | October 28, 2005 at 07:52 PM
I guess the filibuster the Republicans employed to block Miers slipped right past me. Both you and Hewitt are grasping, Edward.
Posted by: Charles Bird | October 29, 2005 at 01:46 PM
Yeah. The old reflexes still kick in from time to time, though.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | October 30, 2005 at 12:19 AM