I’m incredibly flattered, but I regret to say that
1. I couldn’t tolerate the idea of going to work everday and seeing Antonin Scalia there, and
2. Even if the Senate was willing to forgive anything I may have done in the 60’s (official motto of the decade: “If you remember the 60’s, you weren’t there.), I’m afraid some of my screeds here might pose a stumbling block to confirmation—such as There is an infestation of Xshuns on this site! which led off with
CHRISTIANS—GO LOOK AT YOUR PORN SITES; THE ADULTS ARE TRYING TO TALK.
WE HAVE A PROBLEM:
This site is infested with christians, gnawing at the bandwidth and leaving sick little droppings across the server.
3. Some other stuff I don’t want to talk about.
On the bright side, I see that whoever Obama nominates will not be confronted by a filibuster. It seems that the Republicans, ever the party of principle, believe filibustering judicial nominations ranks only above necrophilia (which I believe was condemned even on this forum) on the old reprehensibility scale.
Media Matters has stirring quotes denouncing filibustering judicial nominees from Lamar Alexander (R-TN) Kit Bond (R-MO) Sam Brownback (R-KS) Jim Bunning (R-KY) Richard Burr (R-NC) Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) & Johnny Isakson (R-GA) Tom Coburn (R-OK) Thad Cochran (R-MS) John Cornyn (R-TX) Mike Crapo (R-ID) Jim DeMint (R-SC) John Ensign (R-NV) Michael Enzi (R-WY) Chuck Grassley (R-IA) Judd Gregg (R-NH) Orrin Hatch (R-UT) Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) James Inhofe (R-OK) John Kyl (R-AZ) Mel Martinez (R-FL) Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) Jeff Sessions (R-AL) Richard Shelby (R-AL) Pat Roberts (R-KS) John Thune (R-SD) David Vitter (R-LA) and George Voinovich (R-OH).
Here are a few of the greatest hits:
Sam Brownback (R-KS) “All of the president’s nominees-both now and in the future-deserve a fair up or down vote, regardless of whether some members of the Senate feel they can be filibustered based on whatever they define to be extraordinary circumstances.” [Brownback.Senate.gov, “Brownback Statement on Judicial Nominees,” 5/24/05]
Jim Bunning (R-KY) “I support a change in the rules of the Senate to allow for an up-or-down vote on judicial nominations. We must not let the minority party circumvent the Constitution, and take away the right of the President to have his judicial nominees voted on by a simple up-or-down vote.” [Bunning.Senate.gov, “The Duty To Vote Up-Or-Down,” 5/29/05]
Tom Coburn (R-OK) ” In 2003, however, obstructionist senators decided the system that was designed by our founders and practiced for 214 years was no longer fair. If the minority didn’t like the judicial philosophy of one of [the] nominees they concluded it was their right to deny them the courtesy of an up or down vote through a filibuster. Instead of needing 51 votes to be confirmed, the minority unilaterally declared that judges who failed their liberal litmus test would need 60 votes to break their filibuster.” [Coburn.Senate.gov, “President Bush’s Nominees Deserve a Vote,” 5/11/05]
John Cornyn (R-TX) “I believe, about the process of reestablishing the precedent of majority rule that had prevailed for 214 years in the Senate, that would say any President’s nominees, whether they be Republican or Democrat, if they have the support of a majority of the Senate, will get an up-or-down vote in the Senate. Senators who believe these nominees should be confirmed can vote for them and those who believe they should not be confirmed can vote against them.” [Senate Floor Speech, 5/24/05]
John Ensign (R-NV)“We must put an end to this mockery of our system before it becomes impossible to undo the damage. I am sure a lot of Americans believe this is politics as usual. It is not. Filibustering of judicial nominations is an unprecedented intrusion into the longstanding practice of the Senate’s approval of judges. We have a constitutional obligation of advise and consent when it comes to judicial nominees. While there has always been debate about nominees, the filibuster has never been used in partisan fashion to block an up-or-down vote on someone who has the support of a majority of the Senate.” [Senate Floor Speech, 5/11/05]
Judd Gregg(R-NH) “From a constitutional perspective, judicial nominations have the right to an up or down vote in the Senate, and the filibustering of these nominations is inconsistent with over 200 years of tradition in the Senate and distorts our system of checks and balances.” [Portsmouth Herald, “N.H. voice key on filibusters,” 5/19/2005]
Orrin Hatch(R-UT) “All we are asking is the 214-year tradition of the Senate that judicial nominees not be filibustered be followed. That has been the tradition of the Senate up until President Bush became President. All we are asking is that every one of these qualified nominees who have reached the floor receive an up-or-down vote. That is all we are asking.” [Senate Floor Speech, 4/27/05]
Mitch McConnell (R-KY) “Because of the unprecedented obstruction of our Democratic colleagues, the Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President’s judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate’s ‘advise and consent’ responsibilities to ‘advise and obstruct.’ [...]Given those results, many of us had hoped that the politics of obstruction would have been dumped in the dustbin of history. Regretfully, that did not happen.” [Senate Floor Speech, 5/19/05]
Then those young judges will retire well after they are a hundred years old by reaping the benefits of stem cell research, faith will slowly erode in America, and we’ll be living in a Star Trek universe in no time.
...[in a] 2005 New Yorker article, he [Chuck Grassely, R-IA] told Jeffrey Toobin, “Filibusters are designed so that the minority can bring about compromise on legislation. But you can’t compromise a Presidential nomination. It’s yes or no. So filibusters on nominations are an abuse of our function under the Constitution to advise and consent.”
That was then.
This is now:
I will not vote for Dawn Johnsen and I will support a filibuster because she is so extreme in her views on that point.