The President’s nominees deserve an up or down vote, and we must vote on them for the sake of the Constitution. Otherwise, we are destroying the Republic and violating the principles our forefathers laid out for us. Except in this case:
While Republican senators insist on prompt votes for every judicial nominee, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) has placed a “hold” on President Bush’s nomination of Julie Finley as ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Mrs. Finley is well qualified. Like many ambassadorial appointees, she has been a major Republican fundraiser, but she has also been a strong and active advocate in Washington for the expansion of NATO, the integration of Turkey into the European Union and the spread of democracy to countries of the former Soviet Union. These are issues that would be central in her new post — and issues that Mr. Brownback also has highlighted. Nevertheless, Mr. Brownback, a possible presidential candidate in 2008, as of last night was employing a parliamentary maneuver to block any Senate vote — on the grounds that Mrs. Finley is pro-choice on abortion.
The move may please Republican anti abortion activists, who have launched a campaign against Mrs. Finley, demanding that the president withdraw her nomination. But the hold is repugnant, on both procedural and substantive grounds. If a filibuster is at best a controversial way of deciding policy, allowing a single senator to have effective say over whether to hold a vote on a particular presidential appointment would seem completely unacceptable.
Personally, I think she should just tell Sen. Brownback that she is pro-choice because of religious convictions. After all, when someone says they have firm religious beliefs, we all have to just back off and go along with whatever they believe in or be tarred as anti-religous, right?
I really hope that the Democrats nominate some Wiccans or Buddhists when they next win the Presidency. That will be just too much damned fun.
And, for the pure sake of intellectual honesty- I have no problem with Brownback placing a hold on this woman. I think they should be able to do things like this, and we should go back to the blue slip rule and the other tools we had used for years in regards to judicial nominations.
Jon H
That’s just bizarre. Abortion isn’t even remotely *relevant* to that job, unless they think she’s going to propose the development of fetus-based weapons systems.
Rick
Well, bugger blue slips and holds in all circumstances.
Cordially…
caleb
Don’t worry john….soon as the republicans lose control of congress (not saying this will happen any time soon…though it just might), those republicans will be screaming about how unfair the blue slip rule is no longer and that it should be reinstated and how they can fillibuster anyone they want, at any time, no matter how many times.
As sure as the sun rises in the east……
__________
“Fetus-based weapons system”?!?!?!
Do I smell a classic South Park episode, or is someone just baking brownies?
Simon
Is that in any way, shape or form a legitimate grounds for placing a hold on someone’s career? That just seems ludicrous. Let me get this straight. The law of the land says that abortions are legal. You agree with the law of the land. Your superior can then halt your advancement because he doesn’t agree with the law of the land. So basically, one has to renounce the law of the land in order to move ahead in Brownback’s government? I can’t wait for this joker to run.
Far North
“…President’s nominees deserve an up or down vote….”
“…Democrats are denying the President’s choices an up or down vote and…………”
“..why can’t these very qualified poeple get a simple up or down vote…..?”
“..Liberals are blocking the president’s superb judicial selections by opposing an up or down vote…..”
blah, blah, blah….up or down vote…, blah, blah.
Here’s what the GOP really mean:
“We believe that every one of the president’s nominees deserves an up or down vote. Eh, um, that’s President Bush, not President Clinton. See, Bill Clinton, well he was just dissasembling and he didn’t deserve up or down votes for, um, let’s see, 60+ of his judicial nominees. That’s because American is different now. See, 9/11 changed everything. Some choose to live in a pre 9/11 world. That’s why President Clinton didn’t deserve up or down votes for more than 60 of his nominees to the bench. He was in a pre-9/11 world. 9/11 changed everything. President Bush knows that.
In a pre-9/11 world, Republicans would just block judicial nominees in committee, and see, well it’s all real complicated politics and stuff and we won’t bore you with it but let’s just say we Republicans are tired of the Liberal tricks and we believe the American people want congress to do their job. And that job is to give the president an up or down vote on his judicial nominees.
Up or down votes are the cornerstone of American democracy and those Liberals hate America. It’s as simple as that.
Nothing is more stunning in politics than the hypocrisy of the new century conservative. Nothing!
Hokie
John: I don’t know if it’d be “fun” for Wiccans or Buddhists to be nominated. The outcry would be tremendous. I don’t know if I can take the kind of fundie in the street outpouring we saw over Schiavo for as long as it would be there.
But, lord, this is just unbelievable.
Rick
Far North,
Playing politics and stalling and bottling up nominations in committee wasn’t invented when the GOP took over Congress in 1995.
The elephant is my party’s mascot, and we *do* have long memories.
Cordially…
Far North
Rick,
I never claimed that the GOP started bottling up nominations in 1995. Fillibusters have been used in the Senate by each party when they were the the minority party My point was that all this up or down vote bullshit we’ve just heard from republicans is the height of hypocrisy.
RW
I’m all for internal consistency.
Filed under: “the rhetoric from the people my new kossack audience, that I’m bending over to appease, disapproves of causes violence (cuz I said so…if it hasn’t happened yet, it will. And if it doesn’t, I won’t apologize for being wrong, I’ll just wait until it does or point to other things and say I’m right. Did I mention my new appeasement policy?) while the rhetoric of something else doesn’t cause violence, it’s caused by people”, where internal consistency depends on which way the wind is blowing.
John Cole
Ricky,
I have no idea what that meant, but I know what you are trying to say.
Just out of curiosity- why is it ok for one Republican to block this nominee but not ok for Democrats to do the same because they are anti-abortion?
I think Brownback should be able to, if he is within Senate rules, block whoever he wants for whatever he wants. Same with the Democrats.
That is kissing ass?
Rick
John,
Is RW the “Ricky” one Tim F suspects me to be?
Or were you responding to me?
Cordially…