Exchanging Scripts on Hagel Filibuster

Exchanging Scripts on Hagel Filibuster February 18, 2013

All but four of the Senate Republicans voted to filibuster the nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Obama’s secretary of defense, despite many of them being furiously opposed to such a thing (which has never actually been done to a cabinet nominee until now) when Bush was in office. Here’s Sen. John Cornyn during the Bush administration:

Far too many judicial and executive nominees have been delayed by the majority party of the Senate. An up-or-down vote is a matter of fundamental fairness, and it is the Senate’s constitutional duty to act on each nomination. It is also critically important to our judicial system and the proper functioning of our federal government to fill these positions.

Senators have a right to vote for or against any nominee—but blocking votes on nominations is unacceptable.

And here’s Sen. Jeff Sessions:

The vote, historically, since the founding of this Republic, is a majority vote. Lets [sic] look at that. The Constitution says that the Congress shall advise and consent on treaties, provided two-thirds agree, and shall advise and consent on judges and other nominees. Since the founding of the Republic, we have understood that there was a two-thirds super majority for ratification and advice and consent on treaties and a majority vote for judges. That is what we have done. That is what we have always done. But there was a conscious decision on behalf of the leadership, unfortunately, of the Democratic Party in the last Congress to systematically filibuster some of the best nominees ever submitted to the Senate. It has been very painful.

And he was just talking about judges, not cabinet appointments. Traditionally, the confirmation of cabinet appointments is all but a foregone conclusion because the president should get to pick the people that are in his cabinet. And as always, I must quote former Sen. Jon Kyl when he said that his colleagues in the Senate wanted to get rid of the filibuster and would never change their minds even when a Democrat is in the White House because they’re just so intellectually honest and consistent. This is from 2005, when the Republicans were talking about getting rid of the filibuster:

“Republicans seek to right a wrong that has undermined 214 years of tradition – wise, carefully thought-out tradition. The fact that the Senate rules theoretically allowed the filibuster of judicial nominations but were never used to that end is an important indicator of what is right, and why the precedent of allowing up-or-down votes is so well established. It is that precedent that has been attacked and which we seek to restore….

My friends argue that Republicans may want to filibuster a future Democratic President’s nominees. To that I say, I don’t think so, and even if true, I’m willing to give up that tool. It was never a power we thought we had in the past, and it is not one likely to be used in the future. I know some insist that we will someday want to block Democrat judges by filibuster. But I know my colleagues. I have heard them speak passionately, publicly and privately, about the injustice done to filibustered nominees. I think it highly unlikely that they will shift their views simply because the political worm has turned.”

Yes, you know your colleagues and they are men and women of honor! Bullshit.

"You would actually be terribly overqualified! In Trump world you are not even allowed to ..."

Trump’s ‘Instinct for Science’
"It suggests a political cartoon which probably already exists. I can't draw for shit so ..."

Trump Praises Congressman Who Beat Up ..."
"Of course Trump knows that is a foreign country, you can't fool him!**Only Trump can ..."

Trump’s ‘Instinct for Science’
"Well it all depends on the party membership of the politician in question, doesn't it? ..."

Trump Praises Congressman Who Beat Up ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • iknklast

    As the bard said, “So are they all, all honorable men”. Meaning the opposite, of course.

  • Larry

    Its OK to filibuster now cause there is a scary black man as president.

  • frog

    Do the Repubs have some sort of specific objection to Chuck Hagel other than “Obama picked him”? Do they not like his policies or what they expect him to do in the position? Or is this just another round of throwing sand in the gears of government because they like destroying stuff?

  • slc1

    Re frog @ #3

    The big complaint that the Rethuglicans have against Hagel is that he ended up opposing the Iraq war, thus, in their eyes, making him a RINO.

  • thisisaturingtest

    #4, slc1- that’s been my sense. Of course, they’re taking the idea of RINO to a whole new level when they think a nominee isn’t Republican enough to be in a Democratic administration.

  • “Do the Repubs have some sort of specific objection to Chuck Hagel other than “Obama picked him”? ”

    Well, what slc1 said, plus he’s only been married twice and the one to his second wife is 28 years old; so he doesn’t really speak to the reptiliclowns’ core values.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    some of the best nominees ever submitted to the Senate.

    You don’t list a date for that quote. Whom was he speaking of? Harriet Myers? John Ashcroft? Alberto Gonzales? Donald Rumsfeld?

  • Reginald Selkirk

    FWIW, the Sessions quote was from March 2005.

  • azportsider

    Re: frog @ 3: Hagel also doesn’t hold the core rethuglican belief that our country is the United States of Israel.

  • Robert B.

    Senator Cornyn’s argument quoted above is actually very convincing. I wish he’d had his eyes open when he wrote it.

  • gridironmonger

    Maybe the White House should leak a list of possible alternatives to Hagel, in the order to be submitted as each one is successively blocked:

    1) Carl Levin

    2) Dianne Feinstein

    3) Bill Richardson

    4) Debbie Wasserman Schultz

    5) Dennis Kucinich

    6) Barbara Lee

    7) Michelle Obama

    Either a) they’ll confirm Hagel, b) their heads will explode, or c) they will commit party suicide by trying to filibuster so many successive nominees (which I think the general public will not appreciate nor understand).

  • So, this means that they will stand in the well and spout trivial nonsense which has nothing to do with making the gummint or MurKKKa function? Will the casual observer or their constituents* see any difference from what they normally do?

    * braindead morans

  • dingojack

    Oh no, they’re smearing Hagel! Who is next Heidegger, Schopenhauer, Aristotle?*

    Oh I see. Carry on.

    🙂 Dingo


    Oops too late. (OK, yes it was a particularly gratuitous reference – but why not?) 😀

  • frog

    @4, @9: Thanks for the info.

    So, basically, policy issues. While they’re still idiots for opposing those policies (particularly in the way they’re opposing), I am slightly–slightly–relieved that it isn’t entirely just a reflex.