Sessions: Obama's Court Nominees No Longer Get "Powerful Deference" Open To Filibuster

[jefferson_dem]

Sessions: Obama's Court Nominees No Longer Get "Powerful Deference"
First Posted: 05-18-09 09:56 AM

The rationale is gradually being put in place for Republicans to mount a filibuster of Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee.

On Sunday, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jeff Sessions, suggested that the country had moved to a place "in which there is not as much deference" -- "this automatic powerful deference" -- given to the President's Supreme Court nominees as in the past. Earlier, he refused to "rule out" using a filibuster.

"I have not favored a filibuster," said the Alabama Republican during an appearance on C-SPAN Newsmakers. "I opposed two nominees in the Clinton years aggressively. Trent Lott said it was time to bring it up for a vote. I voted for cloture to give them a final vote because I did not favor a filibuster technique... But you remember the gang of fourteen? The Democrats were filibustering Bush nominees and they said 'well, in extraordinary circumstances but only in those circumstances should you justify a filibuster.' Maybe that's the new standard. It's not in concrete but that may be the standard that is used in the future."

The comments from Sessions were mirrored by those offered by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who appeared on Fox News Sunday.

"All things are possible," said the Kentucky Republican of a possible filibuster. "I think the Senate deliberately decided not to take a position one way or the other. And as you know we did have a cloture vote on Justice Alito, which the President, by the way, opposed... So the President himself has indicated that all options are open, but I think it is way premature."

<SNIP>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/18/sessions-obamas-court-nom_n_204566.html

[hedgehog]

1. Let them filibuster so that all Americans can see them for who they are.

[MidwestTransplant]

2. Yeah and do so unsuccessfully.

[Occam Bandage]

3. They've been filibustering. One more won't change anything.

And no, they haven't been "threatening to filibuster." That garbage comes from a misinterpretation of Senate rules. It used to be that discussion was closed and bills could go to a vote if nobody had the floor; the only way to block a bill was to talk for hours on end. They got sick of that, especially after the marathon filibusters during the Civil Rights movement, so they changed the rules. Now you need 60 votes to close discussion whether someone's talking or not. "Making them filibuster" would be nothing more or less than the Democrats refusing to bring up another bill for discussion or voting. C-SPAN would just show an empty or near-empty Senate chamber. The Dems would blame the Republicans for filibustering, and the Republicans would blame the Dems for wasting time by not bringing up a bill to discuss or vote.

[regnaD kciN]

4. Time to invoke the "nuclear option"...?

:evilgrin:

[DFW]

5. Let America see and hear them for what they are

they are under the delusion that because McCain got 47% of the vote that they
still enjoy at least 47% support of the American populace. Try a filibuster
after Bush Lite got in the horrors of Roberts and Alito, and we'll film it
and send the Youtubes of their worst moments around and around the globe, and
use their sleaziest arguments and tactics in every election where one of them
is trying to retain a seat in 2010 and 2012.

If Obama nominates someone who is qualified, they will only dig their own
political graves, and we'll be only too happy to help them out.