pudge's Journal: Just One

I am watching the Senate debate Judge Owens' nomination to the circuit court.

The Democrats are talking.

I am not hearing a single argument that is not a logical fallacy, or simply hypocritical.

Some examples:

• It's tradition.
  No, it's not. Never until GW Bush has any judge with majority support in the Senate ever been successfully filibustered, and only rarely has it ever been attempted. Further, filibusters were not a part of the Senate when it started in the 1700s, and
• The GOP is saying the filibuster has never been used before, but that is clearly false.
  It is also false that the GOP is saying that.
• The GOP filibustered some Clinton appointees.
  Granted, though unsuccessfully, because many Republicans refused to participate, even though they voted against the nominees. And at the time, most of the Democrats said it was wrong to filibuster judges, and some of them -- including Kennedy and Kerry -- even tried to abolish the filibuster altogether, not just for judicial appointees.
• The GOP has blocked Clinton appointees in many other ways.
  None of which are relevant, not being filibusters.
• The Senate is supposed to check and balance the power of the President to nominate judges.
  And removing the filibuster would in no way change that fact.
• The GOP will violate the rules of the Senate to remove the filibuster.
  False.
• Some of these judges are extreme.
  So vote against them. This is not an argument for the filibuster, but against the judges.
• The Constitution doesn't say the Senate minority cannot use the rules of the Senate to prevent confirming a judge.
  The Constitution also doesn't say the Senate can't change its own rules.
• Special interests are controlling the agenda!
  On both sides, yes.
• They are lying!
  You're lying.

And so on. Am I missing an actual good argument in there?

Blocking is blocking

[John Harrison]

I actually think there is a bit of hypocracy going on here, on both sides. I do think that it is silly for say, Orrin Hatch to complain about the current situation when he blocked nominations for years when he was judicial chair. Now the GOP is saying, "All we want is an up or down vote!" and ,"Advise and consent!" I wonder if they regret their earlier actions. In any case, while there are differences, they are of degree much more than of type.

Everyone's memory is either conviniently long or short, de

Re:Blocking is blocking

[pudge]

I do think that it is silly for say, Orrin Hatch to complain about the current situation when he blocked nominations for years when he was judicial chair. ... while there are differences, they are of degree much more than of type.

I can't agree. There's a significant difference between the majority blocking through ordinary procedures, and the minority blocking through extraordinary procedures.

That said, Frist has apparently been willing to dissolve some of these ordinary procedures too, not allowing the

Re:Blocking is blocking

[M.C. Hampster]

I do think that it is silly for say, Orrin Hatch to complain about the current situation when he blocked nominations for years when he was judicial chair.

Blocking is not blocking. If Orrin Hatch was the chair of the committee, then that must have meant he was... in the majority. This is the big difference. Ultimately, the judges blocked in committee when the Republicans were in charge of the Senate did not have majority support in the Senate. These were not fillibusters. It was not the minority

Re:Blocking is blocking

[John Harrison]

It only indicates that he was in the majority party, not that he was in the majority on this issue. If he were in the majority, then what would be the harm of allowing the Senate to vote in that case? Why block?

Re:Blocking is blocking

[pudge]

It only indicates that he was in the majority party, not that he was in the majority on this issue. If he were in the majority, then what would be the harm of allowing the Senate to vote in that case? Why block?

Often, it is to save time. Why have a vote on someone who has no chance of passing? There's also various political reasons: maybe a candidate would generate a lot of debate that would make the GOP look bad, so they avoid it by killing him in committee, etc.

It would be exceptionally rare for a co

Re:Blocking is blocking

[John Harrison]

There's also various political reasons: maybe a candidate would generate a lot of debate that would make the GOP look bad, so they avoid it by killing him in committee, etc.

So is this another way of saying this is a good way of blocking a nomination when you can't/won't articulate why you are opposed to it?

Re:Blocking is blocking

[pudge]

So is this another way of saying this is a good way of blocking a nomination when you can't/won't articulate why you are opposed to it?

I didn't say it was good. I said it was different, and not as bad as, a filibuster.

Re:Blocking is blocking

[John Harrison]

I thought that was in reference to avoiding an inevitable rejection in a floor vote. A filibuster wouldn't be needed in this case.

Re:Blocking is blocking

[pudge]

Maybe we are talking past each other.

You brought up other ways of blocking nominees. I noted that these are not the same, and not as bad as, a filibuster. I didn't say they are good, nor that I was in favor of them, just that they are not as bad.

You asked what reason would one block a nominee if they would not have a majority in favor of them, and I gave a few examples. Certainly sometimes those candidates would have a majority in favor of them, but I expressed the notion that I believe such cases woul