April 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

« Phone lines are open | Main | Editorial discretion »

May 26, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


That came from a Republican. I must assume then that you (Ed) favor Burr over the Democrats on this issue? (See "Miguel Estrada", filibustered in large part because HE was Hispanic, and the Democrats did not want to allow the GOP to take credit for the first Hispanic Justice, nor possibly endear themselves to Hispanic voters).

I wonder what your thoughts were then?

FTR, I agree with Burr. I think all nominees deserve a hearing and an up/down vote. The party with the history of filibustering judicial nominees are Democrats. Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, Sam Alito. I searched, but I couldn't find where Ed linked to anyone claiming that everyone should have an up or down vote during those nominations. Other liberal bloggers never seemed to care so much back then either. Looks like a little of that non-existent "team sport" mentality at play.

Ed Cone

"I searched..."

Not well.

I can't say things are always so simple, but in general, I agree with Burr and the other GOP Senators quoted. It will interesting to see if they agree with themselves this time, and over the next few years.


Some background on who's whining about whom.



I found those posts in my original search. They don't make the same point. "You shouldn't stop them all" is not the same as saying "they all deserve an up or down vote". Last I checked the word "all" has a specific meaning which differentiates "You shouldn't stop them" from "You shouldn't stop them ALL". The former being in line with Burr's statement, the latter implying there may be occasions when SOME of them should be stopped.

You pull the same trick when you wrote in your last comment "in general, I agree with Burr." The use of "in general" permits you to change your opinion when it suits you or the goals of your "team". Hence, my criticism remains valid and timely.

I also question if you also find it interesting to see if Democrats suddenly find the filibuster to be an illegitimate and obstructionist tool. You made no mention of that, but I suppose that's because it doesn't help the points being made for the team- you know the one that you wrote about Sunday that doesn't participate in the game that only Republican's/Conservatives play.

Once again, you are just as "us and them" as anyone else and those you criticize. It would be nice if you could admit it.

Ed Cone


My long-ago comments show clearly that I essentially agree with Burr's statements.

I say "essentially" and "in general" not because I have some hidden agenda, but because it seems reasonable to leave Senators of both parties some room to deal with contingencies. But the larger point -- the point I made in 2006 -- is plain.

These threads really are more interesting when they aren't about your obsession with me. Let's work on that, OK? Thanks.


I'll second that.

No offense, Ed. You're probably a very interesting guy, but I don't come here to read about you. I especially don't come here to read what Spag thinks about you.


No, they are more interesting when you stick to a position.


P.S., you flatter yourself way too much when you think I have some obsession with you. But with your ego, I can see why you would think that way. Pointing out your frequent hypocrisy isn't an "obsession" with you, rather it's simply a way of assigning your arguments their proper weight. I do it to everyone, not just you. You simply aren't that special, you just have the biggest mouth.


No offense Ed, I don't come here to read about what Thomas thinks about my opinions and analysis of the arguments that you or anyone else make. I especially don't come here to read what he, you, Roch, Ged, or anyone else in the cheering section think about me.

Go team!


No offense, Ed, but I don't come here to read what Sam thinks of Thomas' opinion of his analysis of Sam's opinion of your analysis.

I am glad though, just so the cosmos don't go spinning out of control, that Sam has volunteered to take on the task of assigning your arguments their proper weight.


This is so weird ... I'm really feeling left out.

Just to be clear, I come here to read what all (and I do mean all) of you think about everything.



If your cosmos are spinning you should switch to coke.


I am glad though, just so the cosmos don't go spinning out of control, that Roch has volunteered to take on the task of assigning truth to arguments made by others.

I am saddened however that there are people who suffer from such a lack of intelligence that they don't find it relevant to question why someone who writes that nominees deserve an up or down vote never seemed to feel that way when the opposition in power, and also are too simple minded to understand why that is an important question to ask when determining whether the current position of the declarant should be given significant merit or if the declarant is simply changing there views on the stated premise not because they truly believe in it, but because it suits their current agenda. In a search for truth, such things matter.

Sadly, this kind of below average critical thinking is way too often on display here.

I also think maybe Ed should qualify his remarks about up or down votes considering he is now claiming that there may occasions where this principle should be abandoned. As near as I can tell from the record, those occasions appear to be when a conservative is nominated. I believe this is a logical conclusion considering Ed has waited until now to bring forth the up/down proposition despite at least four filibusters by Democrats in the past eight years.

But maybe I'm just reading too much into all these repeating patterns of selective application of principles.


Up or down votes are for the nominees of parties that can put together 60 votes to cut off debate. If the founders were alive, they would be really sleepy because of all the light we have at night now, and the beer is way better.


You're right, Spag. We're all just too stupid to breath. Thanks for pointing that out. I couldn't muster the brain power to figure it out on my own.

I'm going back to my coloring books now. Hope I can stay in the lines.


The lack of a rational response proves it.

Go team.


I reserve the right to be critical and not have to think too much about it.

I don't think this will make it to a filibuster, anyway. There needs to be another woman on the Court and the Republicans can't afford to rile the hispanic vote.


Oh, she'll make it, but won't come out of it looking that well. Particularly when the Supreme Court reverses her in the Ricci case and she is forced to steal Ruth Bader Ginsburg forthcoming dissent to explain her own opinion at her confirmation hearing.

davenport jr

Never mind the Hispanic vote, and never mind the fact that the nominee is female. The GOP (and rational Dems) should oppose her because she does not respect the Constitution--the 14th Amendment, in particular. Oppose her as a matter of principle, regardless of the alleged consequences. That's the GOP's real problem: abandonment of the party's core beliefs. Sometimes there are costs to doing the right thing.

I have spoken.


Cross posted from my blog:

Andrew Cline, at American Spectator:

"Take everything that is known about Sonia Sotomayor and change three factors -- her race, sex, and family's initial socioeconomic status -- and the points cited in praise of her selection would be diminished by more than 50 percent.

The complimentary commentary would be reduced to: Mr. Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and has had a breadth of experience over his lengthy legal career. That's it."

He concludes:

"Were Sotomayor a white male who grew up in economic comfort, but who had exactly the same legal experience and judicial record, would the praise of Obama's choice be so widespread and so fawning?

Not a chance.

More likely, these same writers would find Sotomayor lacking in qualifications. And that says a lot, none of it good, about how the left views the role of the courts in this country. "

Dave Ribar

I'm hoping that the Republicans DON'T follow the example that Sen. Obama set in supporting a filibuster of Samuel Alito's nomination. Sen. Obama thought that it was okay to deny an up-or-down vote to President Bush's idealogical but otherwise qualified Supreme Court nomination. President Obama now seems to think up-or-down votes should be granted. Different times, I guess.


No Dave, it's just hypocrisy by Obama and something I hope the Republican's don't engage in. Have a robust debate, and have a vote. Set an example of how grown up, responsible people treat the opposition and the Constitutional process. Accountability is important, and if she ends up being a mistake it will be on Obama and the Democrats. Republican's can claim the moral high ground for treating her far better than Democrats have treated Republican nominees for the past 25 years.


I doubt there will be a filibuster. However, the hearings are going to be difficult for the nominee, as well they should be.

The enhanced interrogation techniques to be used won't be particularly gentle, but they WILL be appropriate.

The comments to this entry are closed.