Judicial filibusters…

Judicial filibusters, then and now: Thomas Jipping has a telling article about Democrats who have, in the past, spoken out against filibustering the President’s judicial nominees (during, of course, the Clinton administration) but who’s actions these days are diametrically opposed to their words, allowing a minority to hijack a Constitutionally-mandated up-or-down vote on the nominees themselves.

This is, of course, no big news; Democrats have been the perennial overall winners in the Situational Ethics category (with Clinton being the “Best in Show”), but now we have (more) statistics.

It’s this sort of behavior that has Republicans (and some Democrats) putting forth what they call the “nuclear” option; reducing the number of votes needed to break the filibuster for executive nominees. Democrats have upped the ante every time a Republican has been in the Oval Office, and now their stonewalling has brought us here; 2 years into the Bush administration, and many of his original nominees are still cooling their heels. Issue litmus tests, stalling in committee and other tactics have been used by them to prevent Republicans from putting people on the bench, and now they’re going further than ever before to get their way, in spite of the will of the people of America who put them in the minority.

And this from Democrats who have (outwardly) eschewed litmus tests for judges in the past and who have been the biggest (outward) detractors of partisanship. Obviously, it’s all been outward. As Jipping says, actions speak louder than words.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!