Never Before Has A Judicial Nominee With Clear Majority Support Been Denied An Up-Or-Down Vote On The Senate Floor By A FilibusterThis is a laughable statement, considering that Republicans prevented 50+ Clinton nominees from ever receiving an up-or-down vote by failing to grant them hearings. But the Republicans don't talk about that - instead the add phrases like "with clear majority support" and "denied a vote by a filibuster" to make what Democrats were doing seem totally different from what they did to Clinton. Did Clinton nominees have majority support? We'll never know, because they never got a vote. But they weren't denied a vote by a filibuster, merely by committee inaction.
So you see, it is all very different.
The reason I bring this up is because I think we are seeing them try to use this tactic again in anticipation of a Supreme Court battle.
Unfortunately it doesn't work.
Jonathan Adler has this post over at Bench Memos
Every Democratic senator save Robert Byrd (including "independent" James Jeffords) has signed a letter calling on President Bush to "consult" with Senate Democrats before naming any Supreme Court nominee, according to this report. One question: Has any president ever consulted with the Senate minority before naming a Supreme Court pick - when his own party had a majority of the Senate?"Has any president ever consulted with the Senate minority before naming a Supreme Court pick?" Um, yes: Clinton consulted with Orin Hatch on Ginsburg and Breyer. The two were confirmed in 1993 and 1994 at a time when Democrats had a 56-44 majority.
But you have to give Adler credit for trying to add the "when his own party had a majority of the Senate" language in hopes of creating a bulls*** reason for them to claim there is no precedent for consulting on Supreme Court nominees.