Deconstructing a Right-Wing Talking Point on the Nuclear Option
Deconstructing a Right-Wing Talking Point on the Nuclear Option
As they advance their nuclear option agenda, one of the most favored talking points of the radical right wing is that that the Senate has never denied an up-or-down vote to a judicial nominee once that nominee reached the Senate floor. Bill Frist made this point yesterday:
Never in 214 years of Senate history had a judicial nominee with majority support been denied an up-or-down vote.
How did these judicial nominees even get to the Senate floor? Before a judicial nominee ever reaches the floor, he or she must pass through the Senate Judiciary Committee. Rule IV of the Senate Judiciary Committee states:
The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a rollcall vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.
In other words, debate on a judicial nominee can end only if a rollcall vote obtains at least one vote from the minority party. Proposed by Republicans and enacted in 1979, Rule IV has been upheld for 24 years and by five different chairmen of both parties.
In 1997, when Clinton’s nominee for assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Department of Justice, Bill Lann Lee, came to a floor vote, Senator Hatch said:
Rule IV of the Judiciary Committee rules effectively establishes a committee filibuster right… Absent the consent of a minority member of the Committee, a matter may not be brought to a vote.
On February 27, 2003, then-Chairman Orrin Hatch threw this rule out the window and employed his own mini-nuclear option. When faced with upholding this rule during the committee hearing for Jeffrey Sutton, Deborah Cook and John Roberts (three controversial circuit court nominees), Hatch went against his own previous statement, overrode the rule, and said to the minority: “[Y]ou have no right to continue a filibuster in this committee.” The nominations moved out of committee, paving the path for the nominees currently being debated on the Senate floor, Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen, to clear the Committee by a strictly party-line vote.
So next time you hear right-wingers say this is the first time that the Senate has failed to give an up-or-down vote to a nominee on the floor, remember that it was because they employed the mini-nuclear option and circumvented the Judiciary Committee rules.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I seriously doubt if there is a regular reader of your blog who even comprehends what you just said. For the most part, they think like this….
Bush is bad.
Anything that Bush is for, we are against.
End of story.
If you try to engage them in civil dialogue, they spew names and insults. This is what we know as the “progressive” party.
May 19th, 2005 at 1:55 pmyou know, I am beginning to think the republicans haven’t caught on to the fact that the internet is the great equalizer. sure, it can be used to make money (see “Dean”), but it also can be used to research every word you ever said in public. posts like this keep making me think “did they forget what they said?”
May 19th, 2005 at 1:57 pmJames, it’s not that the Republicans don’t think they can be caught at lying, they simply don’t care. They know that the press won’t call them on it. And they know that even if they did, much of the public, and all of their supporters, are either too stupid, too apathetic, or too ideologically rabid to care about a little thing like lying.
See, e.g., “buckshot.”
May 19th, 2005 at 3:15 pmway to black and white it there buckshot. I am sorry your comprehension is that low but mine is not. Those who are opposed to the nominees in question are doing so out of a belief that these people are way out of mainstream.
May 19th, 2005 at 3:39 pmKrazny,
You could be right. You may know quite a bit about a particular nominee.
If so, you are an exception.
As far as the “mainstream”, I believe they spoke pretty loudly in the last election. Thus the majority in the Senate & House, and the Bush victory.
The mainstream in America is most interested in the economy, issues of morality, crime, and keeping taxes low. (not necessarily in that order)
Progressives are not the mainstream, from what I can see on these blogs. Here’s what I’m hearing from the “progress” ives….
1) Raise income taxes
2) Raise payroll taxes on upper earners
3) Raise minimum wages – force employers to pay more than the employee is worth (don’t worry about layoffs of said employees)
4) let gays marry
5) curse and call names to anyone who challenges your logic
My beliefs are all centered around self reliance, improving one’s ability to earn income, responsible behavior, education, and self discipline.
They work.
Dependence and mediocrity don’t lead to anything but self loathing, anger, and hatred of those who succeed. Take your choice. I took mine.
May 19th, 2005 at 4:50 pmJames and Buckshot, your right about the internet being the great “equilizer” check this out:
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) March 19, 1997: “But I also respectfully suggest
that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and
to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor.�
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Illinois)September 28, 1998: “We should meet our
responsibility. I think that responsibility requires us to act in a timely
fashion on nominees sent before us. … Vote the person up or down.â€?
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) September 11, 1997: “Let’s bring their
nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.�
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)February 3, 1998: “We owe it to Americans
across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues
don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.�
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) May 10, 2000: “The Founding Fathers certainly
intended that the Senate advise as to judicial nominations, i.e., consider,
debate, and vote up or down. They surely did not intend that the Senate, for
partisan or factional reasons, would remain silent and simply refuse to give any
advice or consider and vote at all.�
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) 5/14/97 : “It is not the role of the Senate to
obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even
being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.�
Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): “I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote
against even voting on a judicial nomination.� (Congressional Record, 10/5/99)
Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): “Hispanic or non-Hispanic, African American or
non-African American, woman or man, it is wrong not to have a vote on the Senate
floor.� (Congressional Record, 10/28/99)
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): “My expectation is that we’re not going to hold up
judicial nominations. …You will not see us do what was done to us in recent
years in the Senate with judicial nominations.� (Fox News’ “Special Report With
Brit Hume,� 6/4/01)
Richard Durbin (D-IL) “If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar
that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or
down.” (Cong. Rec., 9/28/98, S11021)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if
necessary, and vote them up or down.� (Congressional Record, 9/11/97)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “It is our job to confirm these judges. If we
don’t like them, we can vote against them.� (Congressional Record, 9/16/99)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Our institutional integrity requires an
up-or-down vote.� (Congressional Record, 10/4/99)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “ is used … as blackmail for one Senator to get his or
her way on something that they could not rightfully win through the normal
processes.� (Congressional Record, 1/4/95)
Tom Harkin (D-IA) “Have the guts to come out and vote up or down….And once and
for all, put behind us this filibuster procedure on nominations.” (Cong. Rec.,
6/22/95, S8861)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “I urge the Republican leadership to take the steps
necessary to allow the full Senate to vote up or down on these important
nominations.� (Congressional Record, 9/11/00)
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “We owe it to Americans across the country to give
these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote
against them. But give them a vote.� (Congressional Record, 2/3/98)
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “It is true that some Senators have voiced concerns
about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote which
gives every Senator the opportunity to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ … Parties with
cases, waiting to be heard by the federal courts deserve a decision by the
Senate.� (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)
Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI): “These nominees, who have to put their lives on hold
waiting for us to act, deserve an ‘up or down’ vote.� (Congressional Record,
9/21/99)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “I hope we … will accept our responsibility and vote
people up or vote them down. … If we want to vote against them, vote against
them.� (Congressional Record, 10/22/97)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “Now, every Senator can vote against any nominee. …
But it is the responsibility of the U.S. Senate to at least bring them to a
vote.� (Congressional Record, 10/22/97)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “ “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 …� (Congressional Record, 6/18/98)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “arlier this year … I noted how improper it would be
to filibuster a judicial nomination.� (Congressional Record, 10/14/98)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “f the person is otherwise qualified, he or she gets
the vote. … Vote them up, vote them down.� (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): “e should have up-or-down votes in the committee and on
the floor.� (CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,� 6/9/01)
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): “e are charged with voting on the nominees. The
Constitution does not say if the Congress is controlled by a different party
than the President there shall be no judges chosen.� (Congressional Record,
3/7/00)
Carl Levin (D-MI) “If a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate is prepared to
May 19th, 2005 at 7:26 pmvote to confirm the President’s appointment, that vote should occur.” (Cong.
Rec., 6/21/95, S8806)
Sounds like you could use some medication Buckshot.
You’re as delussional as your party.
And for the record we totally comprehend the above story. It’s more proof that the pugs are liars. You’re typical rant is something we have heard and discarded a thousand times.
Give it up already. We’re ten times smarter than you and always will be.
votetoimpeach.org
May 19th, 2005 at 7:30 pmCapitalist Infidel –
I agree that these statements show some hypocrisy. There is a lot of that to go around.
The difference is that Frist will be breaking the rules to get this done. By reinterpreting the constitution and thereby stating that the Senate has been behaving unconstitutionally for so many years.
May 19th, 2005 at 7:43 pmSusan,
I’m not sure what you are saying. You clearly are responding to misinterpretations of what you think I said.
May 19th, 2005 at 8:15 pmbuck, you say we cannot comprehend and then you admit you cannot comprehend.
What more can I say?
Gary, I agree with you and please note the dates of the above statements by the Dems.
May 19th, 2005 at 9:02 pmIn the 90’s the up and down vote was widely used as was the filibuster.
Thats all the dems want, is the same options the minority party had in the 90’s.
The dems supported it then and continue to support it today.
Gary
How can you “break the rules” when it’s stated in the constitution that each congress can change the rules if they want? Robert KKK Sheets Byrd led the effort in 1975 to bring the filibuster down from 67 to 60. It’s quite the tradition to constitutionally change the rules from one congress to the next.
May 19th, 2005 at 9:06 pmI realize this thread is waaayyy old now. But I can’t let CI’s dissembling go unanswered, in case someone’s still reading. First, the constitution says nothing about “each congress can change the rules if they want,” what it says is, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” The Senate has adopted a Rule, Rule V(2), which says, “2. The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules.” No one’s arguing that the filibuster can’t be changed, but it has to be done under the rules, and the constitution does not provide that those rules just get chunked out for the Senate at the beginning of each new Congress. And anyway, CI, I hate to tell you, but we’re not at the beginning of a new Congress.
More importantly: When the required votes for cloture were reduced from 67 to 60 in 1975, there was a concomitant rule change demanded by the Republicans: that cloture on a rules change would still require 67. And that’s the way the rule stands today, and that’s precisely the rule that the Republicans are going to simply ignore with their self-named “nuclear option.”
Learn the facts, jackass.
May 20th, 2005 at 10:32 amCapitalist Imbecile and buttsnot both think that if they shout loud enough they must be saying something worth hearing. Then platitudes from a John Wayne movie. Then feigned misunderstanding and pretend umbrage. Add some invective against a tired old man and a buttload of out of context spun quotes and you have …
May 20th, 2005 at 4:01 pmpaid spam trolls.