 Jeff Sessions, 7/25/2003: "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.
Historically, 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. That is why we have never had a filibuster. People on both sides of the aisle have understood it to be wrong. They have understood it to be in violation of the Constitution." Jeff Sessions, 11/5/2003: "Even though there are a majority of Senators prepared to vote and confirm a series of highly qualified nominees for the Federal bench, for the first time in the history of this Nation, the Democratic leadership-Senator Daschle and his team-have deliberately and systematically filibustered. That has never been done before on Federal judges. It should not be done. It is a complete change in the history of this body." Jeff Sessions, 11/6/2003: "For the first time in the history of this country, we are facing a filibuster of judges, and it is not right. It is time to deal with this situation. I hope our colleagues on the other side will yield. If not, I hope they hear from the American people." Jeff Sessions, 3/15/05: "I think the American people sent a clear message and I believe it's time for this Senate to make sure that judges get an up-or-down vote." Jeff Sessions, 5/23/05: "The vote, historically, since the founding of this Republic, is a majority vote. Lets look at that. The Constitution says that the Congress shall advise and consent on treaties, provided two-thirds agree, and shall advise and consent on judges and other nominees. Since the founding of the Republic, we have understood that there was a two-thirds super majority for ratification and advice and consent on treaties and a majority vote for judges. That is what we have done. That is what we have always done. But there was a conscious decision on behalf of the leadership, unfortunately, of the Democratic Party in the last Congress to systematically filibuster some of the best nominees ever submitted to the Senate. It has been very painful." Jeff Sessions, now: "The rules have changed." Yesterday: Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., decried the current "sad state of affairs" involving the nomination process when he told reporters Monday afternoon that he intends to filibuster Judge David Hamilton's selection to the Chicago-based Seventh Circuit Court of U.S. Appeals.
The rules have changed? Reckon that hypocrisy burns much? I submit that it isn't the rules that have changed, it's the President.
Sessions' spectacular flip-flop is barefaced, flagrant, shameless partisan politics as usual.
He opposed filibusters of Bush nominees on principle, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, Jeff Sessions is tossing his precious "principles" right out the window in an attempt to block President Obama's judicial nominees. And it isn't just Judge Hamilton either, Republicans have delayed floor votes for other Obama nominees and Sessions has hinted that other filibuster attempts are possible. |
