Sessions to Filibuster Obama's 7th Circuit Nominee
Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, today told reporters that he plans on filibustering David Hamilton, President Obama's nominee to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. “I intend not to support going forward on the Hamilton vote,” Sessions said. “Unlike Justice Sotomayor, when asked to discuss the empathy standard he has embraced it.”
Sessions' announcement marks an about face for the Alabama senator. Sessions, a nominee to the federal bench under Reagan who was blocked by a committee vote, has for his 13 years in the Senate said he would never filibuster a judicial nominee. “One of the many reasons why we shouldn't have a filibuster, an important one, is Article I of the Constitution. It says the Senate shall advise and consent on treaties by a two-thirds vote and simply 'advise and consent' on nominations,” he said in a 2003 floor statement. "Historicaly, we have understood that provision to mean -- and I think there is no doubt the Founders understood that to mean -- that a treaty confirmation requires a two-thirds vote, but confirmation of a judicial nomination requires only a simple majority vote."
Sessions, in fact, was a leader pushing then Majority Leader Bill Frist to invoke the nuclear option – a parliamentary tactic to strip the minority of the power of judicial filibusters – in 2005 in an attempt to stop Democratic filibusters of Republican nominees. The showdown was averted when the so-called Gang of 14 – seven moderate Republicans and seven moderate Democrats – joined together to select which nominees were too “extraordinary” to pass the Senate.
Sessions said the 30 Democratic filibusters of President George W. Bush's nominees helped change his mind. And he's not the only conservative who believes what shouldn't be done under Bush should eagerly be done under Obama. Some 24 conservative leaders sent Republican senators a letter last week urging them to filibuster Hamilton, nine of whom had also signed a letter in 2005 asking the Senate to abolish the practice of filibustering judicial nominees. “I believe the times have changed,” Sessions said.
When asked about the 24 Clinton appellate nominees that never made it to the floor to be filibustered because they died in the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee, Sessions argued that the Dems were much more egregious under Bush. “At the end of his last year in presidency, President Bush had more of his nominations pending and unconfirmed than President Clinton had pending and unconfirmed,” Sessions said. “That's just Democratic spin,” he scoffed. Still, at least 60 Clinton nominations -- to appellate and lower courts -- were pocket filibustered by committee Republicans, according to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid filed for cloture on Hamilton last week and a vote is expected as early as tomorrow afternoon. A Democratic leadership aide predicted that Hamilton would pass since he has the support of at least one Republican, Dick Lugar from his home state of Indiana.
So far Obama has succeeded on getting only six of his appointees confirmed to lower courts versus 27 in Clinton's first year on 28 in Bush's first year. Republicans object to accusations that they are slow walking many of Obama's nominees, saying his picks are more controversial and more often meet the “extraordinary” standard. Sessions said will vote to filibuster to Hamilton because the district judge blocked enforcement of an abortion consent law for seven years – a decision that was ultimately rejected by the same appeals court he is now nominated to join. And Sessions cited cases in which Hamilton ruled that prayer to Allah was allowed in Indiana's House of Representatives but mentions of Jesus were not. These cases, plus Hamilton's support of the empathy rule and previous statements where he said he believes in footnotes in the constitution, led Sessions to deem Hamilton “extraordinary.” Supporters argue that in the Allah case Hamilton clarified his decision in a post-judgment motion that the ruling applied to all "non-sectarian" references to God and that many conservatives nominees, including Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, have also said empathy is an important quality for a judge.
Sessions hinted that Hamilton may not be the only "extraordinary" Obama pick. When pressed if he would find similar fault in the president's other nominees, Sessions smirked, “You will have to interpret it as you will, I guess.” Meaning Republicans are likely to be objecting to many more of Obama's nominees in the months to come.
-
1
Jay, per your tweets, is today your birthday? If yes, then HAPPY BIRTHDAY! Did you get treated to a free lunch today?
.
Imagine if Sessions and Frist had succeeded with the nuclear option. Oh how today THAT would've bitten them in the… …no HC Senate insurance food fights or House abortion holy wars, no stopping Obama court picks, etc. Have YOU heard any Congresscritters / staffers ever ponder this? (and good luck with your b-day celebrations!)-
1.1
Same with the line item veto. It is only a good idea when you hold the majority. When your not in the majority it's suddenly unfair and a gross abuse of power.
-
1.2
deconstructiva,
Thanks! I got a free dinner last night, if that counts.Indeed, imagine the Senate today if they had blown it up -- no more filibusters!
JNS
-
-
2
“I believe the times have changed,” Sessions said.
.
You bet they have. You're out of power (vive la différence) you lying piece of garbage.-
2.1
Come now, did you honestly believe that Sessions' position on this matter was one of principle? Why the outrage? It was, and remains, a question of politics.
.
Next we will be shocked, SHOCKED to learn that the Religious Right won't be staging any "Justice Sunday" rallies in support of an "up or down" vote as they did during the previous administration.
.
These folks are so transparent and predictable that it makes shock and outrage nigh impossible. They are opportunitists and do as opportunists do.
-
-
3
"In 1999, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) declared: “Vote them up, vote them down.” “But I think they have given the President of the United States the benefit of the doubt, and if the person is otherwise qualified, he or she gets the vote. … That is what the Constitution speaks of in our advise and consent capacity. That is what these good and decent people have a right to expect. That is what our oath of office should compel Members to do – to vote for or against. … Vote them up, vote them down.” (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 9/21/99, p. S11102)"
Apparently being a lying piece of garbage knows no political boundaries. But nice to report all the facts Jay. That drain of journalists being flushed down is getting crowded
-
4
He should wear his kkk outfit while he's doing it as a homage to his forefathers.
-
5
Jay Newton-Small:
.
In the factual matter of whether or not Hamilton's record is “extraordinary” as defined by the ad hoc committee known as the Gang of 14, you write:"Sessions cited cases..."
.
"Supporters argue...", but I don't seem to see where you've clarified the record as to the truth or falsity of that claim.
.
Given that this is the case:the so-called Gang of 14 – seven moderate Republicans and seven moderate Democrats – joined together to select which nominees were too “extraordinary” to pass the Senate.
is it either that:
.
A) Hamilton's record is, in fact, "extraordinary" as defined by that clique of centrists and rightists
.
or B) Hamilton's record would not fail that bloc's "extraordinary" test
.
or C) the so-called Gang of 14 never actually defined on the record what "extraordinary" means, and so simply asserted who was or wasn't an acceptable jurist case by case at that tiny clique's collective discretion
.
Thanks so much in advance for reporting the facts in this story, Jay Newton-Small.-
5.1
stuartzechman,
The answer is C. There was no particular test expect that they would decide as a group on a case-by-case basis. Obviously, Sessions was not part of the Gang so what he deems "extraordinary" doesn't necessarily mean they would agree with him -- what few members are left on the GOP side.
JNS
-
-
6
If Sessions is all in a snit because of Hamilton's "footnotes to the constitution" I wonder if he'd denounce Huckabbee because Mike wants to CHANGE the constitution to more closely follow the Bible?
-
6.1
Sacredh, do you not see a difference between wanting to change something and independently deciding you have the right and power to do something regardless of the Constitution? I think hate crime legislation is asinine because we punish people for their actions, NOT what they are thinking. However, I don't think that gives me the right to engage in any behaviour that would fall under hate crime legislation or to define it to fit my own personal needs.
-
6.2
I do see the difference. It was our elected representatives that passed the legislation and it made it's way through both houses of congress and was made into law because a majority of our representatives felt that it was necessary and justified. The difference with Huckabee is that he would be sworn in to uphold and protect the constitution, not change it because his personal beliefs are at odds with it.
-
-
7
Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III just wants to give Obama a fair shake.
-
7.1
Shaken President Syndrome?
-
7.2
As opposed to Stirred President Syndrome. Which, as everyone knows, requires that extra olive.
-
-
8
Sessions is just doing his best for the good people of Alabama. God knows he is related to most of them. Not just by birth but by marriage as well.
-
8.1
I live 3 miles from West Virginia. I'm well aware of in-breeding.
-
-
9
"The empathy standard"? Is this like an actual thing?
-
10
[...] Oh, Senator Sessions. Why must you go back on your word? Senator Sessions is reportedly considering a filibuster of Judge David Hamilton, an Obama nominee to the 7th circuit court of appeals. However, back in 2003, Sessions (who was denied a floor vote in 1985 for a nomination to be a Federal Judge) said ““Of the many reasons why we shouldn’t have a filibuster, an important one is the Article I of the Constitution. It says the Senate shall advise and consent on treaties by a two-thirds vote, and simply “shall advise and consent” on nominations.” But now, with a Democrat in the White House, he has changed his mind. This continues the long-standing practice of the majority party deriding the minority trying to block the business of the senate and impose their will, only to change their mind when they lose the majority. It’s like not stopping for a pedestrian when you are driving, but then calling the police when a driver doesn’t let you cross at the EXACT same intersection. It is so transparent and is one of the many reasons people don’t trust their congress is actually working for them. Just look at this quote from another article addressing this important issue “Two dozen conservatives led by former Reagan-era Attorney General Edwin Meese have signed a letter calling on senators to invoke the justification of “extraordinary circumstances” to block Hamilton's nomination…Nine of the individuals who signed the memo also signed the 2005 letter to GOP leaders calling for them to abolish the filibuster of judicial nominees…” [...]
-
11
The judicial wars started with Bork. That means that Dems started it. They upped the ante with Bush 41 circuit court nominees, and then in response to the GOP stopping some Clinton nominees, they really took it to Bush 43 nominees.
.
It's up to Dems to stop, not the GOP.
.
By the way, any of you guys read Wong v. Belmontes yet? Looks like Richard Paez (a horrible Clinton appointee) likes to play fast and loose with the record--a big non-no.And JNS, how is the GOP slow-walking Obama nominees. He's been slow in nominating judges, and the Dems have 60 Sens.
-
12
[...] Time/Swampland: Sessions to Filibuster Obama’s 7th Circuit Nominee Jay Newton-Small – No... [...]
-
13
[...] a failed filibuster attempt by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the Senate voted 70-29 this evening to end debate on [...]
-
14
[...] Sessions to Filibuster Obama’s 7th Circuit Nominee Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, today told reporters that he plans on filibustering David Hamilton, President Obama’s nominee to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. “I intend not to support going forward on the Hamilton vote,” Sessions said. “Unlike Justice Sotomayor, when asked to discuss the empathy standard he has embraced it.” [...]
- jnsmall Tonight I finished off the last of the turkey leftovers. As good as it was, I'll happily not eat turkey again for at least a month - 2 hours ago
- jnsmall Obama: Kaar-ah-chi. He's really hitting the native pronunciations. I dunno if this is 2 contrast w/ Bush (I-rahn) or 2 show he's worldly - 4 hours ago
- jnsmall Something about the way Obama says Taliban reminds me of lollipop. - 4 hours ago
Most Popular »
- Piling On Desirée Rogers--Is The Social Secretary To Blame For Two Ticketless Boobs At The White House?
- Through The 2008 Campaign Looking Glass--John McCain on Medicare Cuts, Now And Then
- Is Walking Away from Your Mortgage the Smartest Thing You Can Do?
- It's a Deal: 25 Days of Free MP3 Holiday Song Downloads
- Health Bill: What Would It Cost Me?
- Five Things The President Will Say Tonight About Afghanistan
- State Dinner, Uh, Fashion
- Video: Touring Tim Burton's Freaky MoMA Exhibit
- On Civility
- The Six Greatest Fantasy Novels of All Time
- Want to Boost Your Memory? Sounds During Sleep Can Help
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Tiger Woods Car Crash Bad Publicity for Rich Isleworth
- The End of the 2000s: Goodbye to a Decade from Hell
- Dubai's Woes a Blow to Ambitious Ruler Sheik Mohammed
- The Muppets Perform 'Bohemian Rhapsody'
- Italian Town Dreams of a White (No Foreigners) Christmas
- The Women of Islam
- Could White House Party Crashers the Salahis Go to Jail?
- Study: Loneliness Can Be Contagious
Quotes of the Day »
RSS