Reader Jeff writes in response to my last post on Judicial Filibusters:
Isn’t it odd how Bill Frist voted to filibuster Richard Paez (a Clinton nominee), and now he’s talking about a “simple return to the 200-year of tradition on judges.”
Update: What Jeff said is technically true. Frist did vote against cloture (a motion to end debate) on Paez. Some of the implications that can be drawn from his comment are erroneous.
Implication #1: Republicans filibustered a Judicial nominee – Not true.
14 GOP Senators voted against cloture. 14 Senators hardly represents a party vote.
Implication #2: Bill Frist (and the 13 Republican Senators that joined him) tried to filibuster a judicial nominee – Foggy.
I’m not sure whether they were attempting a filibuster (Senators always count votes before they try to carry a motion and 14 is a long way from the needed 60.) or whether they just wanted more time to try to dismantle the Mormon Mom-Utah Senator deal.
I did a simple Google search for “Richard Paez” and the first result was from the Liberal Slate. Through this current judicial filibusters controversy, Democrats have scrambled to find an instance where the GOP has done the same thing to their judicial nominees. They have come up with some examples that they try to spin as being a filibuster, but they have found no substansive examples. The first salient fact is this: Bill Frist did not vote to filibuster Richard Paez. He voted against Richard Paez. Richard Paez did not get one fair up or down vote… He had many fair up and down votes. Each time (until his Mormon mom cut a deal with Sen. Orrin Hatch (chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee) from Utah) he was voted down by a majority of the Senate. There was no filibuster involved. He was a judicial activist who had no business being a judge. Here’s what Slate has to say:
The Friday Los Angeles Times plays this event as a long-overdue ethnic triumph in the face of Republican obstructionism… Only much further down in the story, long after it has jumped to the innards of the paper does Simon give any hint that Republicans might have actually had a reason for opposing Paez other than his ethnicity, namely that he was a “judicial activist.”
Does this sound familiar or what? Libs play the race card to distract attention from the real issues.
The evidence to back up this complaint wasn’t overwhelming, but even the Washington Post editorial page, which ultimately supported Paez, admitted it was “not entirely frivolous.”
The charges against a liberal judge have to be strongly evidenced and obvious for the WaPo to say they are “not entirely frivolous.” Now if it’s rumors of flushing a Koran down the toilet, the WaPo is right there to defend its sister publication.
It’s really beside the point whether this judge was a judicial activist or not (however, there was very strong evidence to that effect: if Slate and WaPo say something bad about a Lib, it’s gotta be true.); the point is this: the Senate carried out its Constitutional responsibility in a Constitutional manner. It gave an up or down vote on Richard Paez. A majority of Senators gave their “advice” and did not “consent” to the appointment of Richard Paez.
Quote of the Week
“Negotiations are over.”
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid
on the end of official negotiations for a deal to end the judicial filibusters
2 Responses
May 26th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
Read my comment. I didn’t say that Frist filibustered Paez, just that he voted against cloture re: Paez confirmation.
May 26th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
You’re right. Frist voted against cloture, then voted for an indefinite postponement of the debate, and then voted against his confirmation.
My point remains: The Republican party hasn’t tried to filibuster judicial nominees. Only 14 Republican Senators voted against cloture. That hardly constitutes a party vote.
Furthermore, it seems that they wanted more legitimate debate on Paez so they could plead with their GOP colleagues to not vote to confirm. They were rightfully unhappy with the Mom & Hatch deal.
Leave a Comment