Hugh Hewitt writes:
Let me be the first to say that whomever the president nominates, he or she deserves an up-or-down vote in the Senate.
The clear implication, of course, is that somehow the principle of an ‘up-or-down’ vote for judges was dismissed or ignored during the Miers affair, and that folks like me acted hypocritically. Let me be clear- this isn’t the case. Hugh’s thinking is either muddled from the sting of the withdrawal of a nominee he thought should be on the court, or he wrote hastily without thinking at all.
When a nominee is named, that does not mean that everyone on the planet has to STFU and simply wait for an up or down vote. I have every right to voice my opinion, as do the advocacy groups on both sides of the political aisle. What the ‘up-or-down-vote’ bit means is that nominees should be allowed to go through the process, go through confirmation hearings, have an up or down vote in committee, and then have the vote in the Senate as a whole. Not, as has happened in the past under both Democratic and Republican Presidents and Democratic and Republican controlled Senates, allowing a nominee to merely languish for years, blocked from ever having a hearing or a vote and simply languishing in confirmation limbo indefinitely, bottled up in committee.
Harriet Miers was nominated. She was given a time for hearings (they were to start 7 November). She would have had a vote after the committee hearings, and the Senate at large would have voted. That her name was withdrawn prior to going through the system in no way means that those of us who have yelled for the basic principle of nominees getting a hearing and a vote are hypocrites, and Hugh is wrong to imply otherwise, just as is Kos when he suggests that principle of ‘the up-or-down-vote’ was just a talking point that was somehow invalidated by the events of the day.
*** Update ***
Another version here.
*** Update #2 ***
The Right Side Redux goes over the winners and losers of the Miers nomination.
Matt
But John, do you deny that some of those who were calling on her to withdraw/Bush to withdraw her are some of the same people who spouted the “everybody deserves an up or down vote” line? Expressing concern and skepticism prior to the hearings is one thing. Saying she didn’t deserve a hearing (and I’m not saying you did that) is another.
John Cole
Everyone does deserve an up or down vote, and she would have had one. That I am in favor of an up-or-down vote in no way removes my right to forcefully assert that Harriet Miers was an inappropriate candidate. I was not advocating filibustering her. I was not advocating that special procedural rules be used to keep her in committee indefinitely.
I was loudly stating she was unqualified and that she should not be confirmed, all the while content to let the process work.
There is nothing hypocritical or contradictory at all there.
Nikki
A call to withdraw a nomination sets up a block to an up or down vote just as effectively as any other method that has been used in the past.
jg
I don’t think anyone deserves anything. If the person isn’t qualified and is being pushed through any and all means should be used to stop the confirmation. We should get nominees that are good for the country, not the party that is at this time in power.
Flagwaver
John,
You, like many others, seem to be missing what is, to me, a far more fundamental flaw in the silly “up or down vote” argument. You, Patterico, Reynolds, Krauthammer, Postrel, etc., etc. have (i) an absolute, First Amendment right to voice your opinions regarding a nominee, (ii) no elected position relevant to the appointment, and no power (other than by your voice) to affect the nomination, and (iii) NO CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to “advise and consent.” The Senators (be they Democrats or Republicans) have a DUTY to “advise and consent.” Not to play procedural games to avoid a vote they know they’ll lose.
That the White House chose to listen (albeit belatedly) to public opinion and withdraw a clearly unqualified nominee has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with whether particular Senators, for partisan reasons, choose to evade their duty to “advise and consent.” There is simply NO analogy between Senators and unelected commentators, and it is simply silly to suggest otherwise.
jg
Not the party that is in power at the time, I mean.
Walt
Hewitt’s support of Miers was partly based on his view that the Republicans can not get the votes to pass the constitutional option when the Democrats filibuster some one like JRB. That is why he mentions the up-or-down vote.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Oh brother. Sometimes you really surprise me John. If they really believed in letting the process work, they wouldn’t have called for her withdraw. They would have let the process work
This is just another example of Republican hypocrisy.
ppGaz
Upperdown is a crock. The fact is, the Senate makes it own rules. It operates by those rules. It has the power to make the rules and to operate by those rules.
The public’s recourse is at the voting booth. With staggered six-year terms, it is really hard to get direct impact on the Senate, which is the way it was intended to be. Popular election of Senators was not even in the Constitution originally.
Upperdown? Eat my shorts. Let the Senate operate in its own way. Why are the Republicans always looking for ways to short-circuit the established processes? They don’t like judicial process unless they get their way. They don’t like any American process unless they get their way.
They just don’t like America. Well, fine. Let them leave. Good riddance.
Upperdown, my ass.
John Cole
Ummm.. The process DID work. Unless you are now suggesting that we forbid nominees from withdrawing their nomination. Once nominated, YOU MUST go through the process and be voted on. No exceptions.
That would be stupid.
Steven D
The nomination and confirmation of a Supreme Court justice is a highly political process. There are numerous opportunities for opponents to a nomination to use political or procedural tactics to defeat a nomination. To get the nominee to “withdraw” before hearings is one of those opportunities. To block a nominee in committe either by “hold” or otherwise is another opportunity. A filibuster is another opportunity. There is nothing fundamentally unfair about any of these tactics and they are useful to different groups for different reasons. The Senate Rs weren’t going to embarrass the President by holding Miers up in committee or voting her down on the floor. They got him to ask her to withdraw. The Senate Ds don’t have they option, so they need to use other tactics. They are all equally part of the process. The successful nominee will surmount all of these obstacles and a la Chief Justice Roberts will be successfully confirmed. The whole “up or down” meme is just a way to circumvent an important part of the process.
The Disenfranchised Voter
You mean to tell me that you actually believe the Miers withdrew completely on her own accord for the “good of the country” bit? Damn John, you’re more gullible than I thought.
Why would the White House ask conservative groups who they would like to see nominated if Miers withdrew, and how best to go about her withdrawal if they had no intention to pressure her to do so. Miers was obviously pressured to withdrawal.
The up or down vote schtick was and always has been, bullshit.
John Cole
DV- Of course I think she was pressured to remove her nomination. But that in no way perverts the process, or impedes the belief that procedural hijinks should be avoided in the confirmation process.
The ‘up or down vote’ is firmly in place and as a principle was not violated in the least ths week.
Tim F
Talking point is already dead. Republicans loved procedural gimmicks under Clinton, hate it now. God only knows why that might be. Soon enough a Democratic president will arrive that Republicans will re-discover their bottomless love for home-Senator blue slips. You might as well complain about the tides.
John Cole
And then you and I would both be right calling them hypocrites. Not now, though.
Tim F
If it wasn’t for hypocrisy, Washington would grind to a halt within days.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree there. Without a doubt I view it as perverting the process if the standard is “up or down vote”–(A standard I don’t believe in, as I think the filibuster should stay to protect against a tyranny of the majority)
I can tell you this much though–it might not look hypocritical to you, but I think most people would view it as so. Just a thought.
Steve
Of course they are already hypocrites, since this concept of a constitutional duty to render an up-or-down vote wasn’t magically discovered until a Republican got in the White House. Republicans denied floor votes to dozens of Clinton’s nominees, but they claim Bush’s nominees have an absolute entitlement to get a vote. And you seriously contend, John, that they are not hypocrites unless they flip back once again to the original position? Come on.
Doug
Pressuring a nominee to withdraw is just as legitimate (or illegitimate) as filibustering a nominee.
Zifnab
Personally, I was just waiting to see James Dobson dragged in before the Judicary Committee. I won’t even feel bad about seeing Meirs get the SC seat if it let every senator on the Judicary committee with an agenda and a bone to pick with the ultra-religious right take a stab at that haughty bastard.
That said, I do agree that bottling up a nominee in committee is on the dirtier side of Washington politics, however it’s still a tried and true tactic on both sides of the aisle. To bottle up all Clinton’s top picks and then demand that Bush’s nominees are someone immune to the politics of the Senate is pure hypocrasy. Still, the up-or-down vote line really only floats outside of our ridged two-party system. Tom DeLay and Bill Frist style strongarming clearly illuminates how “up-or-down vote” can quickly turn into “vote your party, not your conscience.” But everyone votes so hard down the party line, most “up-or-down votes” are entirely predetermined. When Senators have all been bought and paid for, the rules tend to change.
Shalimar
And then you and I would both be right calling them hypocrites.
Republicans in the Senate already did a politically expedient flip-flop from their position of six years ago, why do we have to wait until they flip-flop again to call them hypocrites? You seem to be a man of your word, so I accept that you really believe in “up or down vote” and thus aren’t a hypocrite. I see no reason to extend the same courtesy to people like Orrin Hatch.
ppGaz
Do you even think about this stuff before you write it?
The Senate makes its own rules. The end.
Complaining about the weather would be more productive. And interesting.
Tim F
I say the tides. With a little ammonium salts and deforestation and a sea-surface anomaly here or there you can do surprising things with the weather.
ppGaz
Yes, I agree that the tides deserve to be up or down.
Steve S
That’s right.
It’s only moderates and liberals who have to STFU when the President nominates someone!
Let us not forget how the Republicans treated William Weld, or the many other nominees they never let have a fair vote even in committee.
Defense Guy
I find it fantastic that some in here are arguing that it was wrong for elected officials to listen to the voice of the electorate and then wonder of wonders act in their wishes, and even more fantastic that now we are going to phrase the process of judicial nomination as if it is some intractible collision course with no possibility for correction.
ppGaz
Yeah, right … you “find it fantastic.” There’s a prelude to some fun material if I ever heard it.
First of all, the Senate is the legislative piece of government most removed from the “voice of the electorate.” The Founders didn’t even have Senators elected by popular vote. The lengthy, staggered terms are also mechanisms to put distance between the process of choosing Senators, and the work of the body.
The Senate does not exist to rubberstamp the “voice of the electorate” on anything at all, even if such a thing could be known … which it cannot. There is no way to accurately judge the “voice of the electorate” at any given time, and the republic model doesn’t really call for that anyway.
Right now the “voice of the electorate” seems to be saying that they aren’t sure anyone in Washington can do anything right. So the perfect response would be for all the potatoheads and lying mealymouthed cocksuckers to resign and go home and spend more time with their families. That’s Dems and Reps, before anyone gets all giggly over the idea. Throw all the bums out.
rilkefan
I thought the public – in particular the majority of the conservative public – was pro-Miers, but the conservative commentariat was anti.
If Bush had had any political capital left, Miers would have gotten her vote. Instead the Brownbacks got to take her out before she even got her committee vote.
ppGaz
I doubt that. It wasn’t about capital. It was about the fact that Republican senators were telling the White House that she was going to embarass all of them if she went to hearings. They saw a PR debacle coming and devised a way to manipulate the news cycles and get her out of there.
The woman was not qualified and could not have done anything in hearings other than create a firestorm that would have injured anyone involved.
This nomination was a collossal fuckup from the get-go. Pure potatohead work, all the way.
ppGaz
“Bush drinking again? Not that it matters … it’s not like he is out there driving around …”
Jay Leno, Oct 27 2005
rilkefan
Not defending the Miers nom., just inclined to think they would have let her slide if Bush wasn’t so weak. As it stands the far-right Senators are being forced to take influence from Bush since he can’t give them any.
Ta re Leno.
stickler
I agree with PpGaz, again. “Pure potatohead work…” Well, given that the Chief Executive’s “Brain” is — ah — busy at the moment, I’m not surprised that the odd stupid decision gets through. What do we suppose the word “vetting” means in this White House right about now, anyway?
But again, PpGaz’s dudgeon is too high. I am disturbed. I think I shall remain so until further notice.
Tim F
Yes, we get it. And in eight years you will find it offensive that anybody would criticize the venerable traditions of filibusters and blue slips.
Blue Neponset
The Repub position was never, “every nominee deserves an up or down vote”. Their position was “every nominee, with majority support, deserves and up or down vote.” That is how they justified blocking Clinton’s nominees for years on end.
While you might not subscribed to the ‘with majority support’ caveat it is still the position of your Party. Having said that, I would like all Republicans to acknowledge that, in the unlikely event that the Democrats win back the Senate in 2006 that Democratic controlled Senate has every right to block each and every Bush nomination they deem fit to block.
Slartibartfast
Horsehockey. It doesn’t block the vote, it makes the vote unnecessary. I would hope the vote would have been not to pass the nominee on to the full Senate, but that’s kind of irrelevant at this point.
Or, I could run for President and then withdraw before the polling is done, and that’d be some sort of perversion of the democratic process. I’d agree with it being a waste of time, but if you’re arguing something of this nature, you’re not making an argument worth considering. IMO, anyway.
ppGaz
My dudgeon is in the shop. I’m using the Binford Turbo Wingnut Basher for a while.
Slartibartfast
Oh, and if the vote HAD been to pass her on, I’d hope the full floor vote would have been not to confirm. FWIW, anyway.