Dems argue a false premise on judges
John Coryn:
"Throughout last night's historic round-the-clock session of the U.S. Senate, a partisan minority of senators defended their filibusters against the president's judicial nominees by making two basic arguments. Both were false.
"First, they claim that the Senate's record of "168-4" — 168 judges confirmed, 4 filibustered (so far) — somehow proves that the current filibuster crisis is mere politics as usual.
But, as I explained in an op-ed yesterday, this is not politics as usual; it is politics at its worst.
After all, it is wrong for a partisan minority of senators to treat good people like statistics; wrong to mistreat distinguished jurists with unprecedented filibusters and unconscionable character attacks; wrong to hijack the Constitution and seize control of the judicial-confirmation process from the president and a bipartisan majority of the Senate; wrong to deny up-or-down votes to judicial nominees simply because a partisan minority of senators cannot persuade the bipartisan majority to vote against a nominee; and wrong not to play fair, follow tradition, and allow a vote. Once is bad enough, and four unconstitutional filibusters is four too many.
"Second, they argue that the current filibusters are justified on the basis of precedent. But, in fact, the current filibusters are both unconstitutional and unprecedented. Senate Democrats themselves have admitted as much."
John Coryn:
"Throughout last night's historic round-the-clock session of the U.S. Senate, a partisan minority of senators defended their filibusters against the president's judicial nominees by making two basic arguments. Both were false.
"First, they claim that the Senate's record of "168-4" — 168 judges confirmed, 4 filibustered (so far) — somehow proves that the current filibuster crisis is mere politics as usual.
But, as I explained in an op-ed yesterday, this is not politics as usual; it is politics at its worst.
After all, it is wrong for a partisan minority of senators to treat good people like statistics; wrong to mistreat distinguished jurists with unprecedented filibusters and unconscionable character attacks; wrong to hijack the Constitution and seize control of the judicial-confirmation process from the president and a bipartisan majority of the Senate; wrong to deny up-or-down votes to judicial nominees simply because a partisan minority of senators cannot persuade the bipartisan majority to vote against a nominee; and wrong not to play fair, follow tradition, and allow a vote. Once is bad enough, and four unconstitutional filibusters is four too many.
"Second, they argue that the current filibusters are justified on the basis of precedent. But, in fact, the current filibusters are both unconstitutional and unprecedented. Senate Democrats themselves have admitted as much."
Comments
Post a Comment