The “Up or Down Vote” FRAUD

NY Times: “The Not-So-Secret History of Filibusters,” by George J. Mitchell, Former Senate Majority Leader, May 10, 2005.

Of the many ridiculous aspects of Republican efforts to stock the US courts with the most aggressive and reactionary judges corporate money can buy,

perhaps the most insulting is the PIOUS mantra that “at the very least, these people deserve an up-or-down vote” …

While that may sound reasonable, the fact that Republicans control the Senate by a 10-vote margin means this alleged “up or down vote” PRINCIPLE is simply a TACTIC to make sure those nominations get out of committee and onto the Senate floor, where they will be assured of a successful result.

In this context, this seeming “principle” is nothing more than what E.H. Carr – Theory lectures 6 & 7 – would call a “myth of harmony of interests” :

a high-sounding statement by which the powerful attempt to exercise their power and legitimize that exercise in the eyes of the dominated.

It all sounds fine and up-standing – “an up or down vote” as a matter of courtesy to these “distinguished” [barf] jurists.

But in a Senate dominated by a 10 vote margin, an up or down vote is simply a way to make sure their nominees get the jobs DESPITE principled Democratic opposition.

And, as former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell makes clear, the Senate has LONG had a tradition of AVOIDING the allegedly sacred “up or down vote” in dealing with nominees.

So please don’t fall for the APPARENT imperative of the “up or down vote” on judicial – or any other – nominees:

In the current context of a 10-vote Republican margin, it’s not ANY kind of “sacred principle” – it’s nothing more than yet ANOTHER way for the right wing to try to get what it wants WITHOUT any regard for the “principles” they claim to hold so dear.

In this context, Mitchell provides some key numbers – numbers that, I’m disappointed (albeit not surprised) to report neither the supine media NOR the equally pathetic Democrats seem to have been using, especially when they are so germane to the matter at hand.

To wit (bold emphasis mine):

Since 1789, the Senate has rejected nearly 20 percent of all nominees to the Supreme Court, many without an up-or-down vote.

20 percent – how do you like that ???

In 1968 Republican senators used a filibuster to block voting on President Lyndon B. Johnson’s nominee for chief justice of the Supreme Court. During the debate, a Republican senator, Robert Griffin, said: “It is important to realize that it has not been unusual for the Senate to indicate its lack of approval for a nomination by just making sure that it never came to a vote on the merits. As I said, 21 nominations to the court have failed to win Senate approval. But only nine of that number were rejected on a direct, up-and-down vote.”

Gee, look at that – it’s NOT unusual for nominees to be rejected WITHOUT an up-or-down vote – and it was a REPUBLICAN who said that … hmmmm …

Between 1968 and 2001, both parties used filibusters to oppose judicial nominees. 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.

So all this NOISE and religious programming for TEN judges – admittedly, ten particularly noxious judges, but ten all the same …

and yet not only did the Republicans filibuster two of Clinton’s picks, they used the very same Senate rules they are now trying to change to prevent MORE THAN SIXTY (60) of CLINTON’S judicial nominees from GETTING THE SUPPOSEDLY SACRED UP OR DOWN VOTE …

Hmmmm … something for the MEDIA to ask these sanctimonious Republicans about … ahhh, who am I kidding ???

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.

What ??? Bush has gotten 95 percent of his nominees accepted ??? But what was that Sunday religious infomercial about ???

But then Mitchell just proves what pathetic wimps the Democrats were when THEY had the 55 votes:

During my six years as majority leader of the Senate, Republicans, then in the minority, often used filibusters to achieve their goals. I didn’t like the results, but I accepted them because Republicans were acting within the rules; and we were able to work together on many other issues. There were 55 Democratic senators then. We had the power to take the drastic action now being proposed, but we refrained from exercising that power because it was as wrong then as it is now.

Oh, gee … I guess there are OTHER principles at stake here than the “sacred” one of up or down votes …

And while you mull that one over, consider this:

So much for the assertion that filibustering to prevent votes on judicial nominees is a new tactic invented by Senate Democrats.

Well, now you can see the Democrats’ problem: this is one of those rare situations where they are actually insisting on a “reality-based” approach to something, in this case, judicial nominees …

Whereas REAL Americans want a “faith-based” approach …

Which you can see is working out so well in Iraq we’ve got to have it here in the US too …