The Victorious Opposition

Constitutionally-speaking, there should never be any obstruction over candidates who are qualified. 

Let’s not let it go unremarked though that the people who started this nonsense about filibustering qualified judicial nominees based on idealogical views rather than credentials were the Democrats.

There is a funny part to this, however.  The Conservative Action Project is actually using the Gang of 14’s own compromise to support this filibuster now:

We agree with Senator Sessions (see attached letter) that indeed this is one of those extraordinary circumstances where the President should be informed that his nominee is not qualified. “Extraordinary circumstances” is the standard agreed to by the bipartisan Gang of 14 for when it is permissible to block a confirmation vote against judicial nominees. The Senate should apply it now to stop the Hamilton nomination.

Now, because they’re using a standard for opposing judicial nominees agreed to in a bipartisan fashion, I’d say that your “hypocrisy” label doesn’t hold water here.

So, it’s not at all hypocritical for people who opposed the Gang of 14 to be calling on the Gang of 14’s solution to get this filibuster attempt in? Seriously? A fair number of those highlighted signers were signers of the “National Coalition to End Judicial Filibusters” letter I highlighted above.

And RedState isn’t hypocritical? Seriously?

I think it’s amusing to use the Gang of 14’s rule against them, but if you’re against judicial filibusters, you’re against judicial filibusters. I don’t care who started it, I don’t care who did it more. To sign a position statement opposing judicial filibusters (not opposing filibusters to particular candidates, but opposing judicial filibusters, period), and then turn around and call for a judicial filibuster against a candidate you don’t like is, by definition, hypocrisy.

Let’s remember that you are one who pretty much always jumps my shit if I do anything approaching “they did it too” like you did in your first response…

No.  If that’s the way the Dems want it, that’s the way we can have it.

You need to look up the definition of the word “hypocrisy”.

What makes them hypocrites is that they supposedly were opposed to judicial filibusters. But what they were actually opposed to was filibusters of their favored nominees. They’re just fine with filibusters of nominees they don’t approve of.

If their position in 2005 had been “we’re opposed to the filibuster of conservative nominees”, that would be one thing. But that wasn’t their (public) position. It was opposition to filibusters - every candidate should get an up-and-down vote.

That is what makes it hypocritical. Nothing the Democrats did or are doing, nothing about the Gang of 14, etc has any impact on the hypocrisy of stating a position, politicking on it, and then taking the exact opposite position when you’re no longer in power.

Updated with the results of the filibuster.

I’d call it cynical but not hypocritical.  Thanks to the Gang of 14, the use of the filibuster for opposing judicial nominees based on ideological reasons is accepted Senate procedure and conservatives cannot be blamed for employing it now.

The only hypocrisy would be Democrats complaining about it being used against them now since the whole thing was originally their idea.

Then you don’t understand what hypocrisy is. Hypocrisy is professing to believe one thing while actually believing something else. Professing to believe that judicial filibusters are wrong and then calling for a judicial filibuster is textbook hypocrisy. Falling back on “well, the Gang of 14 let me do it” is weak rationalization.

BTW - the concept that Democrats created the judicial filibuster precedent is patently false:

As recently as March 2000, several Republicans voted to filibuster two Californians whom President Clinton had named to the 9th Circuit appellate court: Richard A. Paez and Marsha L. Berzon. Paez had to wait more than four years for a final vote, a record delay. Ultimately, the Republican stalling tactics failed, and both jurists now sit on the appellate court.

The Democrats were the first to successfully filibuster a judicial nominee. But the Republicans tried it first, with Clinton nominees. And note that the GOP blocked far more Clinton nominees with the Senate majority than the Democrats did with filibusters of Bush nominees; some estimate 60 Clinton nominees never got their up and down vote.

I know full well what hypocrisy is.  The problem is that the bipartisan Gang of 14 guaranteed that the practice of filibustering nominees based solely on opposition to their positions remained in place in the Senate.  Republicans would be stupid not to use the tactic since Democrats certainly will in the future.

Had the Gang of 14 not reached this compromise to allow this practice to continue (as many of us conservatives wished they hadn’t) and changed Senate rules to prevent filibustering on judicial nominees, this wouldn’t be an issue now.  Instead, they firmly established the practice in the Senate and there’s no point in blaming Republicans for taking advantage of it. It’s a legitimate tactic and the Democrats are now suffering from the unintended consequences.  I think it’s amusing.

If the Democratic Senate would like to eliminate that rule now, I wouldn’t oppose it in principle but it would in fact be precisely hypocritical.

Republicans would be stupid not to use the tactic since Democrats certainly will in the future.

Stupid not to, yes, and hypocrites at the same time (if they opposed filibusters then and supported one now). One can be politically expedient and hypocritical at the same time; I’d argue that many politicians are both much of the time.

But my post wasn’t even about the Senate Republicans (other than pointing out the filibuster attempt). The post was about all those advocating for the filibuster who were against the concept then - they were writing to Senate Republicans, encouraging the “nuclear option” and/or decrying the “Gang of 14” outcome. Their stated position then was “no judicial filibusters”, their position now is “filibuster the liberals”, which makes them definitively hypocrites.

You should actually read the post and see what and who I was calling out for what when…

One can be politically expedient and hypocritical at the same time; I’d argue that many politicians are both much of the time.

It has nothing to do with expediency.  It is now a legitimate tactic thanks to a bipartisan compromise on the Judiciary Committee.

Their stated position then was “no judicial filibusters”, their position now is “filibuster the liberals”, which makes them definitively hypocrites.

No, it doesn’t.  They called for eliminating the judicial filibuster four years ago.  Instead, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate decided to keep the practice in place and guarantee that it would keep happening.  This wasn’t hypocritical; it was inevitable.

This is much closer to hypocritical.  Let the Dems shit or get off the pot.  Either eliminate the rule completely or don’t bitch about the Republicans using it.

It has nothing to do with expediency.

It is exactly about expediency. They know they can’t win on an up-and-down vote, so they’re using the politically-expedient filibuster.

It is now a legitimate tactic thanks to a bipartisan compromise on the Judiciary Committee.

It’s “legitimate” (arguably) in “extraordinary circumstances” (which this clearly isn’t).

No, it doesn’t.  They called for eliminating the judicial filibuster four years ago.  Instead, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate decided to keep the practice in place and guarantee that it would keep happening.  This wasn’t hypocritical; it was inevitable.

Except for the convenient fact you keep ignoring that many of these same people/organizations railed against that solution after it occurred. Read it; it’s linked from my resources. And the now-defunct RedState-run site that you can look at through the wayback machine that was updated for years (last archived version was mid-2008). They only changed their minds when they were no longer the ones in control. Textbook hypocrisy.

You really are being obtuse. There is nothing about the Gang of 14 “solution” that removes the hypocrisy of taking an anti-filibuster stand before and after the “solution” and then advocating for one because that “solution” is in place. Either you believe the filibusters are wrong or you don’t. It’s really that simple. Stop trying to weasel around this with something is utterly irrelevant to ones stated beliefs and ones actions.

It’s “legitimate” (arguably) in “extraordinary circumstances” (which this clearly isn’t).

That’s a subjective term and was left wide open to be used or misused as the minority party saw fit.

Except for the convenient fact you keep ignoring that many of these same people/organizations railed against that solution after it occurred.

This is true.  They failed to eliminate the filibuster rule and were unhappy about.  Still, to browbeat them for using an acceptable tactic that the Democrats used relentlessly on Bush nominees for years in an unprecedented fashion is bullshit. 

Like I said, the Democrats can either eliminate the rule now that they have a giant majority or they can STFU.

Still, to browbeat them for using an acceptable tactic that the Democrats used relentlessly on Bush nominees for years in an unprecedented fashion is bullshit. 

“relentlessly”. Right:

They claim that their actions are justified because the filibuster is being used unfairly to stop the confirmation of President Bush’s nominees. But 208 of the president’s 218 judicial nominees have been approved. That’s right: the Senate has confirmed 95 percent of Mr. Bush’s judicial nominees. That’s a higher percentage of approval than any of his three predecessors achieved.

as opposed to:

In 2000, the last year of Bill Clinton’s presidency, Republican senators filibustered two of his nominees to be circuit judges. They also prevented Senate votes on more than 60 of Mr. Clinton’s judicial nominees by other means.

None of which changes the basic premise of this post which is - it is hypocritical to call for a filibuster when you are not in power when you were calling for the elimination of all judicial filibusters when you were in power.

I’m assuming that Leahy voted for the filibusters of Bush appointees (I don’t know). If he did, yeah, I’ll call him a hypocrite too. What Leahy or any other Democrat did or didn’t do doesn’t mitigate the hypocrisy of these conservative activists who discovered a newfound belief in the propriety of the filibuster when their guys are no longer in charge.

Keep telling yourself that this is about something else. It’s not. It’s about the hypocrisy of changing ones beliefs about such things depending on which party is in power. And all these people/organizations mentioned in the sources I used are guilty of it in spades.

And “they did it to” doesn’t get you past it.

But 208 of the president’s 218 judicial nominees have been approved. That’s right: the Senate has confirmed 95 percent of Mr. Bush’s judicial nominees. That’s a higher percentage of approval than any of his three predecessors achieved

Nice attempt at misdirection by citing a meaningless number.  I’m talking specifically about judgeships at the federal appeals court level, which is what the Democrats were out to obstruct.  Out of 27 open appellate seats, Bush was only able to fill NINE with his originally-selected nominee while eleven were simply left open by the time his second term ended.  I definitely call blocking 1/3 of Bush’s appeals court nominees with the same tactics to which Democrats are suddenly opposed to be “relentless.”

And “they did it to” doesn’t get you past it.

I’m not arguing “they did it too”.  I’m saying that the conservatives are entitled to support an agreed-upon bipartisan-inspired Senate rule without being accused of hypocrisy.  The hypocrisy is solely the property of anyone who supported keeping this rule when the Democrats were the minority and want to do away with it now.

Nice attempt at misdirection by citing a meaningless number. I’m talking specifically about judgeships at the federal appeals court level, which is what the Democrats were out to obstruct.

Gee, this is the first time you’ve made the “appeals court level” reference. Every other reference you’ve made has been to Bush judicial nominees. No mention of appellate. So I cited relevant information about judicial nominees. Who’s moving goalposts? Not me.

I’m saying that the conservatives are entitled to support an agreed-upon bipartisan-inspired Senate rule without being accused of hypocrisy.

And I’m saying that’s a complete load of crap. They were opposed to it until they were for it. That’s hypocrisy.

The hypocrisy is solely the property of anyone who supported keeping this rule when the Democrats were the minority and want to do away with it now.

Yes, those people are hypocrites.

That doesn’t let the right-wing hypocrites going all out against Hamilton off the hook for their hypocrisy. They waged a war against judicial filibusters. They raised a stink about the Gang of 14 settlement, because it still allowed for filibusters in “extreme cases”. Their position was “no judicial filibusters, period”. For those same people to now call for a filibuster of a judicial nominee is hypocrisy it its prototypical form.

Period.

Keep trying to dance around it; you can’t change the definition and its application to these hypocrites any more than you can change the laws of physics.

I’m done now.

I’m not moving goalposts.  You cited a number of judicial appointees that was provided halfway through Bush’s tenure in office and I pointed out that the Democratic strategy was to block appellate court appointees—and they did so very consistently and effectively.

And I’m saying that’s a complete load of crap. They were opposed to it until they were for it. That’s hypocrisy.

You call everything Republicans do “hypocrisy” though.  We’ve all gotten to be pretty numb to it; particularly when you’re wide of the mark at times like these.

Conservatives were right to oppose the Gang of 14 deal in 2005 and it’s perfectly fair for them to support filibusters now since that is the rule that the Senate is stuck with.  The application of the Law of Unintended Consequences is outstanding here. 

As usual, you can’t be troubled to do anything but bash conservatives with overblown accusations of hypocrisy while conveniently ignoring the actual hypocrisy and douchebaggery of people on the Left.