Redstate

simply wanted a no vote and any suggestions of fillibuster were roundly rejected as a procedural device to prevent confirmation.

KOS's argument simply demonstrates that the lefties have no actual arguments and are simply content to point out what they see as hypocrisies by the right.

Moreover, the lefties like KOS consistently tried to confuse what "up or down vote" meant when the nuclear option was on the table earlier this year. They went so far as to call blue-slipping a "fillibuster" and now they are trying to twist arguing against a nominee and for withdrawal into "blocking" a nominee from getting an up or down vote in the Senate.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and that post goes to show how much the left is willing to distort the facts when it suits their game of hypocrisy.

Lastly, because the left's arguments are so predictible and worthless, it would behoove us all to simply ignore them until they grow up as we proceed in getting real conservatives on the court to interpret the law, rather than make it.

Not only do we expect an up or down vote, we expect that the Constitutional option that some people refer to as the nuclear option to be invoked if we do not get an up or down vote.  We further expect to get a real conservative nominated, with a record of being a real Constitutional conservative.  We expect Kennedy and the usual suspects to go ballistic, and we expect the Republicans to vote them down or nuke them.  One way or the other, we expect to get what the Republicans promised us during the campaign or they can expect to be on the outside looking in when the next court nomination opportunity presents itself to the occupant of the White House.

I find it humorous, John, that on your own site you accuse Hugh Hewitt of perpetuating this "dishonest" meme, but here on RS your target is Kos.

But you miss the point.  No one is telling bloggers or advocacy groups that they're not allowed to have an opinion, although HH seems to suggest that it would be good political strategy to shut up (an opinion he's entitled to have, as well).  The hypocrites are not bloggers, the hypocrites are the members of the Senate who supposedly have this constitutional duty to grant an up-or-down vote.  Instead of holding a vote, they went outside the process to urge the President to withdraw the nomination.  The purpose of the Fortas filibuster, likewise, was to encourage the President to withdraw the nomination, but that didn't make it any less a filibuster.

The fact is, the case has been made that the Senate has a certain duty, and then when they dodge that duty everyone is fine with it simply because they like the result.  Saying that she "was going to get an up or down vote" is not the same as actually giving her one, that's for sure.

What is humorous... I re-wrote the whole post.

This one, I think, is actually better, because I don;t have to rely on what I think Hugh was implying and can instead rely on what Kos actually said.

After their performance in this matter, the folks at NRO, et al. can't make the argument anymore.

Nor can they argue that candidates should not be rejected because they'll "vote wrong".

Nor can they argue that what matters is judicial philosophy, as in, "How does this nominee go about the task of judging?"

Kos isn't right about saying Senators are foreclosed from support for "Up or Down" votes.  But if he'd said it about Frum, et al., he'd be right.

Kos being right about ANYTHING ... That's a horrible thought

There were some here who wanted a filibuster of Miers, but I don't recall a single Republican Senator calling for one.

That's the difference between the two sides.  A Kennedy, Kerry, or Clinton will filibuster on the basis of disagreement.  A Brownback, Lott, or McCain won't.

Explain to me how the Senate dodged their duty.  Miers withdrew her nomination.  What would you like them to do?  Force her to go through confirmation hearings?

The up-or-down argument re:Miers is too weak to stand up.  However, the 'litmus-test' re:Roe is sure to come into play now that it was such a big issue for Meirs of late, among the core.

Concerns about her experience and competency are more relevant, and have been played heavy by GOP leadership, to help defuse the Roe litmus accusations sure to come.

GWB can go two ways now; nominate a fire-breathing, Dobson type, (not likely) or try for Gonzalez, and tell the core 'See.  Lay off of the G., he's the only one that I can make work'.

The President made the decision to withdraw the nomination.  Suggesting otherwise is as disingenous as claiming that the withdrawal was actually about the document issue.

And the problem is not that nominations can never be withdrawn, the problem is that GOP Senators went outside the process to urge the President to pull the nomination.

What I derive from all this is that every nominee has a constitutional right to an up-or-down vote, but only if the GOP wants to give her one.  Or, alternatively, you are entitled to an up vote, but not a down one.  As Hugh points out, I don't think that's a very principled position.

Senator Durbin, is that you?

Dobson backed Miers.

In recent days I have grown increasingly concerned about her conservative credentials, and I was dismayed to learn this week about her speech in 1993, in which she sounded pro-abortion themes, and expressed so much praise for left-wing feminist leaders.... Based on what we now know about Miss Miers, it appears that we would not have been able to support her candidacy.

That's Dobson's statement today.  Do you really find it so self-evident that the withdrawal was not due to waning support from key supporters like Dobson?

He said that she didn't have the votes in the committee or on the floor.

He wasn't talking about a filibuster, he was giving his President a heads up that he could pull the nomination or lose on the floor.

It's not all that different (although later in the process) than Hatch telling Clinton that Babbitt would have trouble.

It certainly doesn't effect the constitutional option.

The party in power can rally together to apply pressure and get a nominee pulled.  We just saw that happen.

The party in the minority can only use PR games or a filibuster to do the same.  You can't blame people for working with the only tools they have!

Pick on Dems for being Dems, not just for using the only options they have.

Dobson is 'in the loop', we are just spectators.

He heard something new lately, as did some others' in the know in the GOP, and that is what really did her in.

it sure as hell ain't a fillibuster or denying an up or down vote!

this is perfectly on point.  One item which I have NOT seen a lot of commentary on is the 'win/win' nature of President Bush fulfilling this vision and nominating an exceptionally qualified originalist jurist.  if confirmed, the benefits are obvious.  if the Dems try and filibuster, it will put enormous pressure on both the Rodney King Caucus (Gang of Fourteen) AND the Red State Democrats - forcing them to sweat bullets - trying to decide between their funding sources (Soros, etc.) and the voters in their home state.   Please, George.  DO IT!!

Contrary to your post a majority of the anti-Miers crowd did not simply tell the President they did not support the nomination. They did the following:

1. Demanded her withdraw
   
   
2. Used advertisements to swing public opinion
   
   
3. Carefully selected certain parts of her past to paint a negative picture of the nominee
   
   
4. Said she was not qualified
   
   
5. Wrote articles that misled readers of her past.
   
   
6. Used any negative article to launch another attack on the nominee.
   
   
7. Questioned her intelligence

Many people who post here spread numerous false statements as fact. Some promised never to be part of the GOP again and others promised to vote and use their energy against the GOP.

Like it or not the public will not stand for the nominee deserves an "up or down vote" from the Republicans. The anti-Miers crowd has to realize that the consequences of their actions include:

1. "up and down vote" is dead
   
   
2. Nuclear option is dead
   
   
3. A Luttig or Brown type of nominee has no chance have getting through the Senate.
   
   
4. They have hurt the President.
   
   
5. They have hurt the GOP.    
   

AND HE ISN'T? C'MON WEE AINT DAT STEWPID>

The "up or down vote" meme did not die with Miers' nomination.  As an ideology, it never really existed-- or if it did, it died long long ago.  The same Democrats and Republicans have each used and ignored the rallying cry within a span of a few presidential terms.  It's a cry of political expedience, not ideology.  Whether you're touting "up-or-down vote" or the sanctitude of the process depends mainly on whether your guy is doing the nominating.

Exactly.  The majority gets to decide.  Miers didn't have majority support, so she was through.

That's how it's supposed to work.

Pretty convenient that the only quote you pull is from after her withdrawl.

Now, a simple statement that the nominee deserves an up or down vote won't do. Instead, Bush needs to say:

So you think you have the votes to defeat the nomination, then let's see you do it. If you don't have the votes then get out of the way.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and that post goes to show how much the left is willing to distort the facts when it suits their game of hypocrisy.

That happens on both sides. It's a trait not of the left but of politicians in general.

Lastly, because the left's arguments are so predictible and worthless, it would behoove us all to simply ignore them until they grow up as we proceed in getting real conservatives on the court to interpret the law, rather than make it.

That's kind of offensive, actually, and a little immature, what with the call to "ignore" them. Just because those on "the other side" may not believe in the same things you do, doesn't mean they need to "grow up". Rather, the Dems are in the minority in gov't, and they are just using (wisely or not) what little power they have to prevent those in the majority from making changes that would take the country in a direction that they and (hopefully) their constituents don't want it to go. The Reps would do the same thing in a similar position.

1. "up and down vote" is dead
   
   
2. Nuclear option is dead
   
   
3. A Luttig or Brown type of nominee has no  chance have getting through the Senate.
   
   
4. They have hurt the President.
   
   
5. They have hurt the GOP.    

If the above list is accurate, I'll tell you what else is dead, and that is any hope of the Republicans maintaining their position as the majority party.  If the Republicans cannot or will not accomplish the first three items on that list, if you think numbers 4 & 5 are bad, you have not seen anything yet, but hang on because it's coming in the next election.

The Dems are in the minority and are forced to use whatever tools they have. The filibuster is one of them. Republicans would use it, too, if they were in the same position. Currently, however, Reps hold the Senate, Congress, and the Presidency: They don't need to filibuster anything, because they're ones making all the actions. All the Dems can do is to use their few tools to try to prevent the Reps from running away. Any side in the minority would do the same.

to go through with the nomination? How perfectly bizarre.

What I derive from all this is that every nominee has a constitutional right to an up-or-down vote, but only if the GOP wants to give her one.  Or, alternatively, you are entitled to an up vote, but not a down one.  As Hugh points out, I don't think that's a very principled position.

You know, maybe if you read the post with any degree of care, you would understand what it is you should be "deriving." Either John's entirely straightforward point completely escapes you, or you are being dishonest. Or perhaps both. In any event, at the very worst, you are only fooling yourself.

Very True generalgrant...(awfully tired of leftists defining us)...

Okay, call me immature.  Actually, generalgrant makes a valid point...liberals tend to ignore "growing up" and simply advocate the common liberal POV.  The Dems are in the minority because they profess the wrong point of view according to the majority of the public!  Politicians (even liberals) would at least flock to the popular view (you would think)...

I have to agree that many of the leftists would never get a populist majority on their views and it should remain so... (until we decide to become another European Socialist country)..

The president is allowed to withdraw a nomination any time he/she chooses prior to the actual confirmation of the nominee.

Or, the nominee can withdraw.

Neither scenario would invalidate the 'up or down' vote.

Regardless, as it stands, she DID in fact withdraw her name fron consideration, and what happened behind the scenes does not matter.  What does matter is that the nomination would go forward had she not withdrawn andthe President not withdrawn her, and the notion that nominees deserve an up or down vote was not violated in spirit or as a matter of fact.

The conservatives will have to learn to deal with a DEMS majority. She how much we will get done then.    

What's the basis for the comment "Republicans would use it, too, if they were in the same position."

When has this happened, or what is the most recent GOP-led filibuster of a judicial nominee? More generally, when is the most recent GOP led filibuster of any issue?

I think the point of the argument is that the judicial nominee filibuster is the latest step, and one which is so far unique to democrats.

Until the past few years, the common methods were "holds" and "blue-slips" IIRC, and even now both parties seem to be using them. If anything, the Fortas filibuster was more bipartisan than anything nowadays, similar to the Tower withdrawal.

I'm afraid the democrats have the filibuster issue all to themselves lately as far as an exclusively partisan tool, and there's little or no evidence the GOP has used it as such.

As always, past performance is no guarantee of future results.

As a conservative I remember the fury I felt when Bork was borked.

And now we conservatives, in a never-ending desire to be punished, have done it to our own President and his nominee.

If you think this case of borking done to Harriet will not decrease the chance of getting a conservative through that the blogocrats of the right will approve of, I have a bridge to sell you.

You know, I've heard the same from several souces but am unconvinced!  I (ignorant government servant) am still fairly sure of one thing...the Republicans are considerably more moral than the Democrats.  So, to that refrain, I would assume that the Republicans would not do the same as the Democarts (guess that is partially due to a claim to higher morality).

Yep, still ignorant in Red America...

Bush should put his foot down before he alienates the rest of his base by pandering to the the religous zealots. How is it that the ultra religious faction of the republican party believes that they should have the right to impose their minority (look at the poll numbers on Roe v. Wade) opinion on the other 65% of Americans who feel that judges shouldn't legislate from the bench.  As a pro business classical Republican (before the religous fanatics took over) I am horrified at the highjacking of the party by fundamentalists.  I think Nixon and Eisenhauer would be horrified if they were around today.  To the evangelicals: you are part of the base, but you do not have a monopoly on conservatism.  Political labels of left or right or liberal or conservative do not apply to you if you do not believe in the process and advocate ad hoc theocracy!

There are two certain results from the defeat of this nomination (and it is a defeat):

1.) The President lost and is thus weakened (how much and for how long is unknown but happening early in his second term is historically very bad).

2.) The carefully nurtured Republican issue of "up or down votes" is weakened ((how much and for how long is unknown).  Any defeat in process (yes, I know this is how politics works)of a bill or appointment whether as a result of committees, cloture, caucus fights, smoke filled rooms, or un-recorded votes, argues against the accountability argument Republicans have been effectively making for years (and which won them back the Senate).

The Miers opponents had strategic objectives which outweighed what they considered potential tactical setbacks.  They had and have every right. Whatever the wisdom of their strategy however, it is very hard for me to see how their strategy did not entail these tactical loses (which Miers defenders considered freighted with stategic consequence).

You think the fact that the public opposed judicial activism is the reason that 65% "support" Roe v. Wade?  Ha!  What it means is that they've had the wool pulled over their eyes by the liberal media.

65% of Americans answer "no" to the poll question, "Do you think Roe v. Wade should be overturned?" because they do not understand what such a ruling would do, which is to return resolution of the abortion issue to its rightful place: state legislatures.  They believe that the overturning of Roe v. Wade will totally outlaw all abortions nationwide, which is completely false.

Do you think if the question was, "Do you believe that the debate over abortion should be resolved by the Supreme Court or state legislatures?" that 65% of Americans would choose the Supreme Court?  Quite the contrary.

Does not do a better job of being conservtive, we will be a Socialist Democratic Republic.





If anything the the HR episode has displayed is that conservatives have come to waht at least one thing from this administration.  

<hr><hr>

Instead of getting a nation of things.

except...

Sam Brownback - voted against cloture on Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez's judicial nominations (2000), helped block their nominations for 2 and 4 years, respectively.  Also voted to filibuster appointment of David Satcher as Surgeon General.

John McCain - voted against cloture on "liberal activist" H. Lee Sarokin's judicial nomination (1994).

Trent Lott - no filibusters of judges, but voted to indefinitely postpone Paez's nomination, and voted to filibuster 11 Clinton executive nominees, including Walter Dellinger, Sam W. Brown, Derek Shearer, Ricki Tigert, and  Henry Foster (McCain joined him in this).

Well put...  It's a shame that the MSM puts such a spin on the question.  If they said "Should the Legality of Abortion be retuned to the States" then maybe we would get a true representation of the people.  Ah well, such is the life of the MSM (and unfortunately politics).

Who? FInd me one person here advocating a filibuster. I mean someone who's not an obvious moby who didn't get banned.

Agreed.  Maybe there is some generational separation on this issue (obviously not Will, Kraut, Kristol) but in the rank and file who don't remember the dark days of Bork or pre-revolution Democratic power. How we weren't just going to pursue different policies but reject certain tactics.  We will be in the minority again.  And no holds we be barred.  Hopefully not 2006 or 08.

Well, I have to agree with you there... I have become a bit disenchanted with this administration due to spending and the lack of border control.  The only thing that keeps me afloat is the thought of a Democrat administration doing much worse.

Bork got an up or down vote.

I am beginning to think that people who use the term 'borked' most frequently don't even know what happened to Bork.

Did you have a reason why the "up or down vote" is dead, or a list of seven things you're dissatisfied with?

You and arkie can't possibly believe that this nomination was in any way analagous to the Bork nomination, can you?

Robert Bork was a bold conservative who'd spent his entire career fighting for a correct interpretation of the Constitution, and he was defamed and misrepresented by liberal Democrats for it.

Miers has spent 60 years on this earth and in that great span of time never uttered a single word about her views on the Constitution (much less defended it), and for that, coupled with her personal relationship with the president, she was rewarded with a nomination to the highest court in the land.  Conservatives, rightly, denounced the nomination as cronyism of the highest order and urged its withdrawal.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

I'm sorry but you place way too much value in Dobson's opinion.  The real killer was the many conservatives (all stripes) that have been questioning her qualifications for several days...  See most of conservative blogs...  Jumping to conclusions is a common fault of the Dems...

was 9th Circuit judge Richard Paez, in 1999, I believe.  Frist and many others voted against cloture, but the filibuster ended up broken.

It was the blogs.  Sure it was.  Keep telling yourself that.

Even though the blogs have been on this drumbeat for weeks, and Dobson just changed his position because he found out about the pro-choice speech, it has to be the blogs.  It just has to be.

Actually, below, a conservative poster agrees with my point, noting that the GOP has the right to block a nominee through whatever means because they are the majority, but the Dems don't since they are the minority.  Like I said, an entitlement to an up vote, but not a down vote.

I don't know who you would consider an obvious moby, and I don't know who got banned, heh.  But I do remember at least two separate occasions to someone calling for a filibuster.

Looks like one wasn't for Miers, but rather before she was even picked.  I did find one call for a filibuster of AGAG (I never remember if it's an S or a Z at the end of his name, so the AGAG acronym is a help, heh), should he be nominated: http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/9/26/135337/908/17#17

Here's a call for 41 senators to block Miers: http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/10/3/74558/9332/92#92  .  The parent comment did, too, but the name of that poster for some reason rings a 'please ban him' bell in my mind.

I also noticed a wish that the rules allowed a blue slip of Miers, but that's technically not a filibuster.  It's just the obstructionist technique used during the Clinton years, heh.

From one side, we're constantly being told that the Republican establishment doesn't really want to ban abortion.  From the other, we're told an anti-abortion cabal run by Dobson really controls the party.

I guess opponents of the President just pick the story that's convenient for the moment.

My first response (without googling) is to assume that you do not understand "filibuster".  If I am wrong, I apologize...  

Did the republicans actually filibuster (ie. 60 plus were against the nominee (were there 60 Repubs then) and actually blocked the nominee? If some were Dems, this does not apply.

Voting against a nominee does not constitute a filibuster.  Please explain your logic.

Yes, the blogs...  There are many conservatives that do not read the NYT's or the Washington Post so where do we get out information... why the blogs of course...

I look to blogs for verifiable information rather than believe the "MSM" newspapers... Yes those are scare quotes - how else would you describe them?

I guess that you have to just believe whom you want to heh?  The liberals will have you believe that the religious right controls the party...the neo-cons will have you believe that they control the party...mercy, I can understand your predicament?

Must be tough being a Democart...

Perhaps you're the one who doesn't understand what it means to filibuster. A filibuster is not a "60 people are opposed, so it doesn't go anywhere." The theory behind the filibuster is that, in order to stop a vote a from being taken, 60 senators need to vote for "cloture", or closing debate. If more than 40 senators are unwilling to vote for cloture, the debate stays open.

In the old days, debate would stay open only so long as someone was speaking about it. But that means obviously the Senate can't vote on anything else, so it has a side effect of shutting down Senate business. Thus, a compromise was reached back in the 1960s, I think it was, where a filibuster which opponents cannot achieve a successful cloture vote on is assumed to be in effect, while the Senate goes on to do something else.

Thus, when a Senator votes against cloture, it's not unfair to state that they are supporting a filibuster. Unless they come flat out and state "We are filibustering forever" (and they generally don't), they're ostensibly simply wanting to continue the debate. (Those of you trained in computer science may be familiar with the provably undecidable halting problem: it's impossible to decide whether a general program that has not halted simply hasn't halted -yet-, or will -never- halt. The parallel with the filibuster is obvious).

how point #2 makes any sense.  If the Majority Leader says to the President, "The votes are not there, this nomination will fail", and the President pulls his candidate, how does that result in the Senate blocking a vote on the nominee?  

That's the first time I'd seen either of those comments, and no, neither of them are banned, or what I'd consider mobys. So I guess I have to retract that.

In our defense, that's an incredibly small sample - and certainly no one on the "staff" came close to even suggesting it.

We aren't getting anything done now, at least nothing that we were promised. I don't want to put words in your mouth or attempt to try to read your mind, but from my understanding of what you said, you seem to be saying that as Conservatives, we should overlook the fact that we are the heart and soul of the Republican party, and that the Republicans gladly accepted our efforts to build a majority in Congress and elect a Republican to the White House based on our values that are supported by a majority of Americans, but then turned their backs on us once they got elected.

We as Conservatives are saying to the Republicans, you did this to us once before with the pledge of "read my lips, no new taxes."  We Conservatives are principled supporters, and though we understand politics, we also understand that if we don't stand for principles, we don't stand for anything.  We understand that if this nation does not stand on our Constitution and our laws, that if we accept the idea that the Constitution is "a living document subject to change without going through the process clearly defined in the Constitution", that we stand on shifting sand, and that is a foundation that will surely fail. It is on principle that we say to the Republicans you can play politics all you want until the next election, but then you are going to have to find another job because you aren't going to have the one you have now.

We conservatives are saying to the Republicans that on PRINCIPLE, if you are not going to do what you said you were going to do, then you can do without our support in the next election.  We don't see much difference in being lied to by Republicans than being lied to by Democrats.  If the Republicans are not going to put a strong Constitutional judge on the Supreme Court, what difference is there in what the Democrats would do?  If the Republicans don't make the tax cuts permanent, what difference is there in what the Democrats would do?  If the Republicans don't control spending, then what difference is there in what the Democrats would do? If the Republicans are not going to control our borders, what difference is there in what the Democrats would do? And since it makes no difference, why should we vote Republican and then be treated like a redheaded step child?

It was on Conservative PRINCIPLES and VALUES that the Republicans were elected to a majority in Congress and to the White House.  But as soon as they got comfortable with that, they began playing politics as usual and did not follow through on the Conservative platform that got them elected.  I will never understand what it is about people who know the right things to do, and who run for office on a platform of doing the right things, but as soon as they get to Washington D.C., somehow all of that seems to vanish.  What is it about the air or water in Washington that makes people forget the principles and values they ran on?  Whatever it is, we Conservatives don't care, and we are tired of it.  We drew a line on the court nomination and have put the Republicans on notice that if they cross it, they can forget about our support on any other issues.  You may think that is cutting of the nose to spite the face, but you can bet somebody is going to bleed somewhere if the Republicans don't start following through on the campaign promises they made.

The only evidence I have that Dobson changed his mind is from after he changed it.  Truly, you have me there.

On Tony Snow's radio show this morning James Carville said an advertisement is ready to go that basically states that "the Republicans did not give Harriet Miers an up or down vote".

More to come.

Thanks for the reply.  

I agree with, "The votes are not there, this nomination will fail", is SOP and not "blocking" a vote.  It is also wise.  But it is not a "vote" as the term has been effectively employed by the Republicans.

The "fairness" of the confirmation process of judges has been a major political football since, at min., Bork.  The definition of "fairness" crystallized, for Republicans in recent years around the simple (even simplistic) phrase "every nominee deserves an up or down vote."  

Most effective political rally points are simple, understandable and unnuanced.  "Give them a vote" resonated.  

Daschle, Byrd et al. argued that the time-worn (and frequently anti-civil rights) filibuster was part of the great nuanced traditions of the Senate.  For Daschle and company a fair process did not mean a floor vote, or so they argued.  The process was full of examples of holds, delays, log-rolling and generally nuanced sausage making. He lost his seat.    

The simple usually trumps the nuanced in politics.  

The Gang of 14 argued that they had given the President's nominees a "fair" process and "preserved the Senate" without the mess of a showdown vote.  The Republicans in the Gang said it was folly to insist upon the narrow simplistic yeas and neas.  After all, they argued, the President didn't (or might not) have the votes.  

My point is that most effective political dialogue is simple and direct.  Republicans defined a "fair" process as the yeas and neas.  It will be harder for them to employ that definition to political advantage in the future.  They will be forced to explain to the "great unwashed" how Miers was different (which in detail it is) which puts nuance back on the table for Dems.

Redstate is populated by some VERY bright minds who are extremely well informed and connected to the inside baseball of politics.  Unfortunately, IMHO, this can make it hard for many to hear how some of this might play in Peoria (OK, I know, hackneyed).

Thanks again for your reply.  

The decision to allow filibusters while continuing business otherwise was a very poor rule change.  The Senate is allowed to set whatever rules they want, but that was a horrible one.  Filibusters need to be painful to the side that is filibustering.  A filibuster now means "40 people oppose this", it used to mean "40 people consider this so horrible that they will shut down all senate business, rotate thru giving speeches 24/7, bring cots into the capitol, etc."  

Screw the nuclear option, bring back the old filibuster rules and watch the judicial filibusters end.

liberals tend to ignore "growing up"

What does that even mean?

simply advocate the common liberal POV

That's their job. Cons do the same (in theory, anyway) with the con POV.

The Dems are in the minority because they profess the wrong point of view according to the majority of the public!

Actually, I think there are more Dems than Reps, though maybe not as many turned out as should have during the election. At any rate, one side or the other represents only a very slim majority at best.

have to agree that many of the leftists would never get a populist majority on their views and it should remain so...

What have the Reps done to earn a populist vote, out of curiosity?

...but what is the basis of your opinion? What have the Reps done to earn that praise?

http://hnn.us/articles/11754.html

Clinton's appointees were also filibustered (in the modern sense) relentlessly, if I remember correctly.

You are correct Miers and Bork are not the same - as nominees.  

What some of us have been bothered by is a process that allowed unanswered charges to gain the weight of truth before the nominee is in a position to answer them.  The verdict was in before the trial began.  

Kennedy's opening statement at the Bork hearings indicated that there was nothing he needed to hear.  The "Borking" had already taken place.  The speed with which Kristol, Will and others were willing to reach their judgment on Miers, without affording her any opportunity to reply, reminded some of us of the Bork non-hearings.

Those who opposed based on credentials or the crony charge could reasonably render a summary judgment based on what they considered minimum criteria (though I believe they should have still afforded the President and his nominee the opportunity to make their case by waiting for her to take the stand).  Others opposed based on her perceived positions and philosophy about which she was not afforded opportunity to reply.  

There is a structural window between nomination and the hearing in which the nominees are most exposed to both substantive and scurrilous attack.  It is this "open season" when the nominee can not personally defend themselves that has long bothered me.  

What happened with Harriet was exactly the same tactics the GOP has been blasting Dems for.

The argument has ALWAYS been that the President has the right to nominate whomever he chooses and that then the appropriate response of the Senate is to give that person an up or down vote. Period. Not that the President has the right to make a formal nomination and then the Senate through media channels can sabotage that choice. Whether through blue slips or fillibusters or trial by media, the essence of the effort, indeed the goal of the effort in all such cases, remains to avoid an up or down vote. Pretending that the hoped-for withdrawal was not motivated by a desire to avoid the embarrassment of an up or down vote is disingenuous.

It is exactly the same. Even Hewitt said so in the Times today, and no amount of slippery spin will make it any less so.

Again, I thank you for providing our entertainment quotient - but when you can identify the elected Republicans that refused her a vote - through procedural means or otherwise - I'll be happy to hear it.

I saw a quote from Sen. Warner that said Miers "was denied due process by her own party."  Maybe you should direct your question to him.

Apparently the Senator takes the view, which I share, that saying she "would have received an up-or-down vote" is not indistinguishable from actually giving her one.

That's a really questionable link to support the notion of GOP filibustering. The Fortas case is very close to being in a category by itself.

I'm a big fan of googling, and am more interested in the Paez case. I guess my point is narrower than it appears - namely, while the GOP under Clinton used a variety of tactics to delay his nominees, they never quite took the step which the democrats under Bush have taken - the use of the filibuster and successful party line cloture votes to sustain it for many judicial nominees.

Admittedly it's a fine distinction, since the effects may be the same as the senate in the 1990's, but the distinction is in the more obvious application of a supermajority requirement to nominees for fairly routine ideological differences. Fortas was held up for those, as well as serious ethical and conflict of interest questions, so I am reluctant to accept his treatment as a general rule of anything.

that one is growing tiresome.

The Withdraw Meirs website lists the elected Republicans who voiced reservations about the nomination. I'd argue that doing so undermines any claim they might make to supporting an up or down vote each and every time. The senators you might want to check with first include...

Senator Rick Santorum

Senator Sam Brownback

Senator Trent Lott

Senator George Allen

Senator Lindsey Graham

Senator Jeff Sessions

Senator David Vitter

Senator John Ensign

Senator John Thune

In fact, this argument gives ridiculous a bad name.

really, it's clear why you want to resuscitate the talking point, but you're so wrapped up in that you're missing that everyone else can see the GOP no longer has a leg to stand on for insisting it's how things should be.

Your credibility here is gone.

So, if a Senator "voices concern" over a nominee, it means that they no longer believe in "up or down vote"?

I see now why Mike wanted to keep you around.

You make a profoundly stupid and indefensible statement that an "up or down" vote was denied in the absence of a cloture vote, a committee vote, or a floor vote and you say MY crediblity is destroyed.

Of course, you aren't worried much about your credibility given your track record.

before the hearings it certainly does suggest they're not willing to adhere to that principle, yes.

What's it suggest to you? That they want to poison the well before the hearings?

Really...you folks need to just accept that this talking point is lost forever. You killed it.

it suggests they voiced concern. It doesn't suggest they would vote against her. And they didn't vote. So no, the issue isn't gone forever.

Just wow.

You know, if they had said, "I plan to absolutely vote no" for this nominee, that's perfectly in line with "up or down vote," but "I'm concerned about this nominee" has... wait, what was it again? "Killed this talking point forever?"

I guess there really is no limitation to what a man can accept as true, if he really, really wishes it to be true.

that it's not the same in the end.

The argument was simple before Harriet: The president's choice gets an up or down vote. Period.

Now you're having to contort the calls for withdraw as if just part of the process to assert the process wasn't circumvented. Profoundly stupid and laughable to boot.

is saying she was denied a vote when that didn't happen. In fact, that would easily fallin the Big Lie category.

Not a single Senator said they would vote against her.

There was not vote.

She withdrew her nomination.

I'm guessing the difference is that the Reps still had a bunch of power when Clinton was in office, so they had more tools at their disposal. The Dems currently don't have much power at all, though -- they don't control anything. So stalling things (or threatening to do so) is one of the few ways they have of making sure their voices are heard.

She didn't withdraw her nomination. Bush withdrew her nomination.

Pretending otherwise makes you look very silly.

I guess there really is no limitation to what a man can accept as true, if he really, really wishes it to be true.

You're both guilty of this, in my opinion.

It's disingenuous to argue that the argument for a floor vote on any nominee is totally invalid now.  It's also disingenuous to say that there is zero hypocrisy in the way Republican congresscritters acted during the last few weeks.

that making counterfactual statements establishes you are silly in a rather convincing manner.

You know as well as I do that Bush pulled the nomination to avoid the embarassment the GOP assured him would follow in the up or down voting...they didn't want the up or down vote, despite the fact that Bush nominated her officially, this time they didn't want the up or down vote. You know this is true.

Really. You're not fooling anyone, no matter how many times you use "wow."

Meirs withdrew the nomination without Bush telling her to?

I'm using the word "wow" that many times because I literally can't help it.

So you admit that the GOP would have given her an up or down vote, and then say in the same sentence that the up or down vote is destroyed? Astounding.

Let me give you a hint - "up or down" vote literally means "up or down" vote - not "up or up" vote. And if Bush had sent Miers to the Senate, she would have gotten an "up or down" vote. Maybe that would have gone up, maybe it would have gone down.

So, at this point, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and explain that the point of "up or down vote" wasn't that all of Bush's appointments automatically deserved "up" votes - the point was that they deserved "up or down votes." Kind of exactly like the slogan says. Bernard Kerik, bless his heart, would have gotten an "up or down vote" if Bush had sent him to the Senate. Bush realized, rather presciently, that it would be "no," and so saved himself the trouble.

So, I'd agree that the principle of "up or up vote" - which absolutely no one has advocated, is dead. The principle of "up or down vote" - not so much.

is to say otherwise contradicts the facts as we know them today and any statement beyond that is as best speculation. She could also have been told by "the voices" to withdraw her name from consideration.

Let's make this really, really simple:

You and I both know what Bush wanted. He wanted Meirs on the court. The GOP, through incredible political pressure, derailed the hearings and thus the vote, denying Bush what they've  insisted he deserved no matter up until that nomination. Why didn't they just vote down instead? Because to do so would have further weakened the party.

Got it?

Of course you do...you just want to pretend it isn't so.

And I wonder if the effects of FDR's court packing plan have finally worn off. Even though the legislation failed, he pretty much cowed the courts and legislature, and it took the better part of 50 years to openly politicize the process again.

Hide behind the party line if you want to...it's not fooling anyone else though:

From Sully

According to informed sources, this is how the last day of the Miers nomination played out. Yesterday morning, President Bush met with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, and others at the White House, where they discussed the problems facing the nomination. There were staff conversations between the majority leader's office and the White House throughout the day. There was a meeting in Dick Cheney's office in the afternoon, with the vice president and nomination strategists taking part, in which the fading support for the nomination was discussed. And then in the early evening, Frist had a phone conversation with White House Chief of Staff Andy Card in which Frist gave what's being called a frank assessment of the nomination's prospects. Not long afterward, a final decision was made, and Miers called the president at 8:30 p.m. to say she would withdraw, and the formal announcement was set for this morning.

My italics. Who made the decision? Cheney? Bush? Doesn't this strongly imply that the president or vice-president decided to pull the plug on Miers and then had Miers "decide on her own" to withdraw?

when did that happen. The hearing was scheduled and never cancelled by the Senate.

here

that is certainly a credible source given his great access to the White House.

I'm still laughing.

it's not Sully's access... and you can cling to plausible deniability if you want to, but Occam's razor suggests he's right.

If I rely on Occam's Razor then I have to believe the letter of resignation rather than some kind of three-cushion bankshot told by an anonymous source to a another less than reliable source.

The BullDog in size 6 shoes who had shown the utmost devotion to serving her president decided that because the Dems were asking for documents from a White House that has shown no hesitation to deny such requests in the past she had to go against the President's will and withdraw her nominition on her own? That seems even remotely plauible to you?

So, because pressure was applied to give Miers a "down" vote, we've surrendered the principle of "up or down vote"?

Someone's having trouble understanding the meaning of the word "or," I guess.

I have productive things to do. Have a nice day.

The simplest solution is that Miers realized that the hearing was going to be unpleasant if not demeaning and decided not to go through with it.

By the way, the Sullivan piece, absent Andrew's giddy interpretation of Byron York's reporting, does nothing to bolster your argument that she was asked to withdraw.

The letters Harriet wrote Bush suggested she had a very high tolerance for demeaning experiences.

By the way, the Sullivan piece, absent Andrew's giddy interpretation of Byron York's reporting, does nothing to bolster your argument that she was asked to withdraw.

And what bolsters your argument that she wasn't? Your "trust" in the president? Where was that trust before the withdrawal?

Seriously...this is bordering on farce at this point.

they didn't pressure Bush to vote "down" (he doesn't get a vote in the Senate, silly)...they pressured him to withdraw the nomination and prevent it from getting that far. It's no different in end result from a fillibuster or other tactic.

Otherwise, stop wasting our time with these diversions meant to be accepted as wisdom from Sinai.

How about "stark raving goofy"? Here's a hint: Expressing reservations or dissatisfaction with a nominee does not constitute denying the nominee an up or down vote. Or is it your contention that a Democratic Senate denied an up or down vote to Zoë Baird, Kimba Wood and Lani Guinier?

Actually, don't answer that. My tolerance for stark raving goofy commentary has its limits.

I'm also laughing. And at you.

So because you found a conservative poster to agree with you, I'm supposed to as well?

You know, my tag line was written with people like you in mind.

me reading your posts would suggest I also have a high tolerance for demeaning experiences but so long as Mike has given you a Kevlar vest that's a price I have to pay.

The memos, which I hasten to point out are the only evidence, bolster my case. I can't answer for Andrew's fantasies.

And this discussion became a farce with your first post.

Here is some intelligent commentary on the process that would tend to support John Cole's post and arguments. Not that I expect Steve M or Edward to give way to the impressions of experts--after all, they have talking points to propound--but never let it be said that we at Red State don't try to enlighten the benighted.

you should write professionally.

The memos, which I hasten to point out are the only evidence, bolster my case

The memos are not the only evidence. When deciding whether she would have withdrawn herself we have quotes from folks who know her well to judge by. For example:

"Harriet is not a person that gets frustrated easily," R. Bruce LaBoon, a former law partner, told Texas Lawyer. "She doesn't lose her temper. She is very cool and calm in a storm."

That certainly doesn't support your assertion that she "realized that the hearing was going to be unpleasant if not demeaning and decided not to go through with it."

I guess my low opinion of your writing skills must be shared by the masses then. You've obviously heard this critique before. Funny you chose not to act on it.

...not the content.

As for my writing skills...you're wholly unqualified to shake me from my faith in them. ;pp

For fear of actually teaching you something about the confirmation process - I'd advise you to do a little research about how many times a senator from either party voices reservations about a nominee (hell, for any office) and yet ends up not only allowing a hearing for said nominee - but actually voting yes.

...that the Republicans employed to keep Miers from a vote before the full Senate.

Thanks for posting this, John.

The "up or down vote" principle has always been a call for basic procedural fairness in the Senate. It has absolutely no relevance to the Miers situation, where the nomination was withdrawn before ever reaching the Senate.

The guy is a liberal ... by definition, Edward and Steve M are strictly result oriented. That's why there is no difference to his mind if any of the following three occur.

(1) A nominee is withdrawn.

(2) A nominee is rejected by the Senate.

(3) A nominee is filibustered.

What Edward and Steve M. look at is whether or not the person gets to be on the Court. If not, whether or not he/she was actually filibustered, withdrawn or rejected, he/she has been 'filibustered'.

As a coservative, you're looking at the process. Totally different frame of reference.

we don't know who the nominee is yet, but we do know what the left's arguments are going to be against that nominee. The nominee is going to be called extreme, right-wing, fundamentalist (probably some Taliban mentions). The nominee will be called bad on education, children, minorities, gays, women, privacy, abortion, the environment, gov't power, "end of life" issues, etc, you name it. Their press-releases and protest signs are already written, they just ned to fill in the name of the nominee.

Since we aleady know what those arguments are (utterly predictable), we can summarily dismiss and ignor them as unserious.

Anyway, who is the majority party, and who is the minority party? We don't Dem senators to confirm its nominees.