 The debate over the Supreme Court has brought a puzzling attribute of the slowly ebbing Republican party to the forefront. No matter what they're doing, no matter what the issue, Republicans just don't seem to be bothered by their own hypocrisy and double standards.
Now, don't get me wrong. I realize that to some extent, we are all hypocrites. We all employ double standards from time to time. Those of us with children know all too well that the things we once thought might be very good ideas we would never let our kids do in a million years. So, I understand. Time goes by. We age, we get more experience, we get wiser, and sometimes we change our minds. And sometimes we eat crow over it.
But not Republicans. How long ago was it un-American to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee? Wasn't that just a short 3 to 4 years ago? Don't you remember the rhetoric of the then-majority Republican party? I sure do.
"This Senate must do what’s right. We must do what’s fair. We must do the job we were elected to do and took an oath to do. We must give judicial nominees the up-or-down votes they deserve." - Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader (2005).
"The Democrats' judicial filibusters are extreme and an arrogation of power. Under the Constitution, the right to nominate judges belongs to the executive, not to the Senate minority leader. Yet the minority leadership has claimed a right to 'veto' by filibuster any nominee who deviates from the minority's extreme, ideological litmus tests. The president can submit any nomination he likes, but he knows that even if a clear majority supports his nomination, the Democrats will 'filibuster-veto' it. Further, the "advise and consent" function is in serious jeopardy if this new tactic of filibustering judges continues. The Democrats have made it all too clear that they are willing to let the Constitution's separation of powers fall by the wayside if that is what it takes to push through their agenda." - Rick Santorum, Republican Senator (April 17, 2005).
"Fundamentally, what we have is a partisan minority blocking a bipartisan majority from being able to act on the Senate floor. And this is something that we think needs to come to an end." - John Cornyn, Republican Senator (May 13, 2005).
"The President believes that the fix is for the Senate to exercise its constitutional responsibility and ensure that every judicial nominee receives an up-or-down Senate vote within a reasonable time after nomination, no matter who is President or which party controls the Senate." - Roberto Gonzales, Counsel to President George W. Bush (May 6, 2003) (prior to his appointment as Attorney General of the United States of America).
During the six months or so prior to and encompassing the nomination and confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States, one phrase was on every Republican senatorial lip. 'All of the President’s nominees, both now and in the future, deserve a fair up-or-down vote,' said Sam Brownback, of Kansas. 'Every nominee, no matter if the President is Democrat or Republican, deserves an up-or-down vote,' said Jim DeMint, of South Carolina. 'We must take action to insure President Bush’s nominees are getting the up-or-down vote they deserve,' said Kay Bailey Hutchison, of Texas. 'Since the day I came to the U.S. Senate,' said Pete Domenici, of New Mexico, 'I have believed strongly that every nominee deserves an up-or-down vote.' The conservative commentariat was equally of one mind about the sanctity of verticality. 'The American people,' wrote John Podhoretz, in the Post, 'won’t understand why a candidate should be denied an up-or-down vote.' The White House, naturally, agreed. 'We believe that every judicial nominee deserves an up-or-down vote,' said Karl Rove. Boing, boing. It was like watching a trampoline exhibition. - Excerpted from The New Yorker, November 14, 2005. Media Matters has set up a page with all the relevant quotes from all the now irrelevant Republicans. It's worth a look-see, if for nothing else but a laugh.
With no apparent understanding whatsoever of the party's long standing official position on this issue, Republican Senators John Kyl and Ben Nelson, just the day before Sonia Sotamayor's nomination, on May 25, 2009, both publicly stated that they will pursue filibusters to hold up confirmation of any nominee they don't like.
It will be quite interesting, and possibly kind of fun, to watch these hypocrites weasel themselves an excuse, however lame it may be, for this particular double standard.
Graphic taken from the Huffington Post. |
The debate over the Supreme Court has brought a puzzling attribute of the slowly ebbing Republican party to the forefront. No matter what they're doing, no matter what the issue, Republicans just don't seem to be bothered by their own hypocrisy and double standards.
