2008 Woodie Awards
Democrats lack power
Issue date: 5/3/05 Section: Commentary
To the editor:
As some of you may know, the Democrats in the United States Senate have filibustered 10 of President Bush's judicial nominees, and some have been waiting for a constitutionally guaranteed right to receive an up or down vote for up to four years. This kind of obstructionist behavior is unprecedented, irresponsible and grossly inexcusable. Most appalling of all is the insurmountable hypocrisy of the Senate Democrats. Ironically enough, in 1995, a total of 19 Democratic senators voted to end the filibuster option on all Senate matters (S.Res. 14, CQ Vote #1: Motion Agreed To 76-19: R 53-0; D 23-19). Even more ironically, nine of those very same democratic senators still serve today (Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lieberman and Sarbanes) and of these nine, all now oppose the filibuster rules change for only judicial nominees. Meaning they have no problem changing the filibuster rules, but only if the change would best suit their political agenda. In fact, it was Sen. Ted Kennedy who said the following in 1995 in regard to judicial nominees: "Senators who feel strongly about the issue of fairness should vote for cloture, even if they intend to vote against the nomination itself. It is wrong to filibuster this nomination, and the senators who believe in fairness will not let a minority of the Senate deny [the nominee] his vote by the entire Senate." (Sen. Ted Kennedy, Congressional Record, 6/21/95, p. S8806) In 1997, democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer said the following regarding judicial nominees: "According to the U.S. Constitution, the president nominates and the Senate shall provide advice and consent. 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. Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, 5/14/97, p. S4420) Additionally, Sen. Joe Lieberman said the following in 1995 regarding judicial filibusters: "For too long, we have accepted the premise that the filibuster rule is immune. Yet, Mr. President, there is no constitutional basis for it." (Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Congressional Record, p. S36, 1/4/95) Lastly, Sen. Tom Harkin urged republican leadership in 2000 to "take the steps necessary to allow the full Senate to vote up or down on these important nominations." (Sen. Tom Harkin, Congressional Record, p. S8339, 9/11/00) No judicial nominee should be denied his or her constitutional right to receive a vote, even if he or she doesn't satisfy a political litmus test. According to polling numbers released by Republican National Committee Chairmen Ken Mehlman, 80 percent of those polled agreed that all judicial nominees deserve an up or down vote. Since the democratic senators championing the aforementioned judicial filibusters have vowed to continue denying judicial nominees their constitutional right to an up or down vote, the only unfortunate option left is to remove the filibuster itself. Let there be no misunderstanding, the Democrats will not shut down the U.S. Senate as they have threatened to do if they do not get their way, and if they do, it will not be tolerated by a majority of the American people. Case in point: Newt Gingrich and the U.S. House shutdown story. Hypocrisy.
Jason Ratliff
Senior
As some of you may know, the Democrats in the United States Senate have filibustered 10 of President Bush's judicial nominees, and some have been waiting for a constitutionally guaranteed right to receive an up or down vote for up to four years. This kind of obstructionist behavior is unprecedented, irresponsible and grossly inexcusable. Most appalling of all is the insurmountable hypocrisy of the Senate Democrats. Ironically enough, in 1995, a total of 19 Democratic senators voted to end the filibuster option on all Senate matters (S.Res. 14, CQ Vote #1: Motion Agreed To 76-19: R 53-0; D 23-19). Even more ironically, nine of those very same democratic senators still serve today (Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lieberman and Sarbanes) and of these nine, all now oppose the filibuster rules change for only judicial nominees. Meaning they have no problem changing the filibuster rules, but only if the change would best suit their political agenda. In fact, it was Sen. Ted Kennedy who said the following in 1995 in regard to judicial nominees: "Senators who feel strongly about the issue of fairness should vote for cloture, even if they intend to vote against the nomination itself. It is wrong to filibuster this nomination, and the senators who believe in fairness will not let a minority of the Senate deny [the nominee] his vote by the entire Senate." (Sen. Ted Kennedy, Congressional Record, 6/21/95, p. S8806) In 1997, democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer said the following regarding judicial nominees: "According to the U.S. Constitution, the president nominates and the Senate shall provide advice and consent. 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. Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, 5/14/97, p. S4420) Additionally, Sen. Joe Lieberman said the following in 1995 regarding judicial filibusters: "For too long, we have accepted the premise that the filibuster rule is immune. Yet, Mr. President, there is no constitutional basis for it." (Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Congressional Record, p. S36, 1/4/95) Lastly, Sen. Tom Harkin urged republican leadership in 2000 to "take the steps necessary to allow the full Senate to vote up or down on these important nominations." (Sen. Tom Harkin, Congressional Record, p. S8339, 9/11/00) No judicial nominee should be denied his or her constitutional right to receive a vote, even if he or she doesn't satisfy a political litmus test. According to polling numbers released by Republican National Committee Chairmen Ken Mehlman, 80 percent of those polled agreed that all judicial nominees deserve an up or down vote. Since the democratic senators championing the aforementioned judicial filibusters have vowed to continue denying judicial nominees their constitutional right to an up or down vote, the only unfortunate option left is to remove the filibuster itself. Let there be no misunderstanding, the Democrats will not shut down the U.S. Senate as they have threatened to do if they do not get their way, and if they do, it will not be tolerated by a majority of the American people. Case in point: Newt Gingrich and the U.S. House shutdown story. Hypocrisy.
Jason Ratliff
Senior
