Judicial Nominations: Myth-Fact

Myth #1: Senate Republicans Are Attempting To Abolish All Filibusters.
Fact: Republicans Are Seeking To Reestablish The Senate's Traditional Role In The Judicial Nomination Process, Not Eliminate All Filibusters, An Initiative Some Democrats Have Supported In The Past.

Myth #2: Filibusters Of Judicial Nominations Are Part Of Senate Tradition.
Fact: Having To Overcome A Filibuster (Or Obtaining 60 Votes) On Judicial Nominations Is Unprecedented And Has Never Been The Confirmation Test For A Nominee -- And In The Past, Even Democrats Have Called For Up Or Down Votes.

Myth #3: Democrats Want To Continue Debating These Nominations So They Can Reach A Compromise With The Republican Majority.
Fact: The Democrats Have Threatened To Shut Down The Senate Rather Than Carry Out Their Constitutional Obligation To Provide An Up Or Down Vote On Judicial Nominees.

Myth #4: Democrats Treatment Of Bush's Nominees Is Analogous To Republicans Treatment Of Clinton's Nominees.
Fact: President Clinton's Judicial Nominees Were Not Filibustered And Never Before Has A Judicial Nominee With Clear Majority Support Been Denied An Up-Or-Down Vote On The Senate Floor By A Filibuster.

Myth #5: The Constitutional Option Is Unprecedented.
Fact: Senate Democrats Have Used The Constitutional Option In The Past.

Party Of Nine Becomes Party Of No (for full details-click on URL)

Dem "Party Of Nine" Voted To End All Filibusters In 1995:
In 1995, Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) And Eight Other Democrats Now Serving In The Senate (Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, And Sarbanes) Supported Ending All Filibusters. In 1995, the only Senators on record supporting the end of the filibuster were all Democrats, nine of whom are still serving in the Senate.

The Harkin-Lieberman Proposal Would Have Amended The Senate Rules To Allow A Simple Majority To Overcome "Any" Filibuster, Legislative Or Executive.

Democrats' Double Standard

hyp·o·crite -- n. One who pretends to be what he is not or to have principles or beliefs that he does not have

The Democrats' efforts to block President Bush's qualified judicial nominees are not only hypocritical iies but are examples of partisan politicking at its worst.

Republicans in the Senate are working to ensure that all of President Bush's judicial nominees receive a fair and final up-or-down vote. Despite Senate history and tradition, Democrats are aggressively trying to prevent qualified judges from receiving what's been afforded every judicial nominee for over 200 years.

During the Clinton Administration, Democrats demanded up-or-down majority votes on judicial nominations, but, now that they are in the minority, they have become the party of obstructionism and double standards. That's HYPOCRISY.

The Constitution guarantees an up or down vote, but the Democrats don't want to perform their duty. That's UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

On July 25, 2003, President Bush made history by nominating Janice Rogers Brown to the federal bench. Brown is the first African American elected to the California Supreme Court and was reelected by California voters with 76% of the vote.

The daughter of Alabama sharecroppers who grew up in segregated schools in the midst of Jim Crow policies in the South, Brown is a single mother who worked her way through college and law school.

Despite her sterling personal and legal credentials, during the 108th Congress, Senate Democrats used a hypocritical double standard to block her nomination. Judge Brown is not alone. Senate Democrats obstructed an up-or-down vote on 9 other well-qualified judges. Some of these judges have been waiting for a vote for four years.

It seems Democrats have changed their tune on giving all judicial nominees a fair up-or-down vote. They now claim the filibuster is a sacred tool of the Senate. But in 1995, Democrats, including nine who still serve, voted to rid the Senate of this tool.

That's right, nine current Democratic Senators voted to get rid of the filibuster. Now that it suits their needs, they praise it. What's worse than this hypocrisy is these same Senators now lead the obstruction and threaten to shut down the Senate. Their claims of loyalty to, and reverence for, Senate traditions are just another sham designed to hide their hypocrisy.