Orrin Hatch, A Man of Principle
On CNN’s Inside Politics, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch participated in the following exchange:
WOODRUFF: But Senator, they are saying there is clearly a double standard here. That whether you -- you know, whether you go purely by the numbers or not, they're saying Republicans are using a standard -- or are saying there shouldn't be a standard that you, yourselves, used years ago.HATCH: Well, the fact of the matter is that we believe the standard ought to be the same as it's been for 214 years. And that is, when a nominee hits the floor, they deserve a vote up and down. What's wrong with that?
Hatch seems to be espousing a principle that judicial nominees deserve an up or down if, but only if, the nomination makes it to the floor of the Senate. It is hard to see why that particular limitation should be the only exception to a requirement for an up or down vote.
If the constitution requires that the Senate express its advice and/or consent to a judicial nominee by means of an up or down vote (as the GOP has argued), it seems mighty odd for that requirement to apply only when a nominee makes it to the Senate floor.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has 18 members, 10 Republicans and 8 Democrats. Senator Hatch’s position seems to be that it is perfectly okay for a Senate rule to permit a group of ten Senators (a majority of the Committee) to block an up or down vote on a judicial nominee but it is unconstitutional for a Senate rule to permit a group of 45 Senators from doing so.
Indeed, when Senator Hatch was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he implemented a rule by which a single Senator could prevent a judicial nominee from receiving an up or down vote by not returning a blue slip on the nominee.
Senator Hatch must have a very peculiar view of the constitution. He no doubt believes that his position is one of principle. As best as I can tell, the constitutional principle Senator Hatch is applying is as follows:
The constitution requires an up for down vote on all judicial nominees favored by Orrin Hatch. Nominations opposed by Orrin Hatch may be blocked by whatever procedural tool is at hand.
After all, Orrin Hatch is a man of principle.
Update:
Hatch’s argument that Senate history and tradition support the nuclear option took a hit today. The tactic was described as a “radical, radical departure from our history and our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government."
Which partisan Democrat said that? Ken Starr. (Link via Corrente).
Update:
In comments, it has been noted that Ken Starr contends that he was misquoted.
Comments
FYI, Starr says he was grossly quoted out of context (as in, the answer was pertaining to something else). Since the original source was CBS News, no one should be suprised.
Posted by: Ricky | May 12, 2005 07:37 PM
"[The nuclear option is a] radical, radical departure from our history and our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government."
You have heard by now, hopefully, that Dean Starr was not referring to the "nuclear option"?
KEN STARR'S REAL VIEWS [Ramesh Ponnuru]
CBS, AP, and other outlets reported earlier this week that Starr had said that getting rid of the judicial filibuster would be a "radical, radical departure from our history and our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government."
This seemed like a very odd thing for Starr to say, so I contacted him.
He forwarded to me an email he had sent to someone else who had asked about this matter:
"In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather is being lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. The 'radical departure' snippet was specifically addressed -- although this is not evidenced whatever from the clip -- to the practice of invoking judicial philosopy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong. I contrasted the current practice . . . with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg's nomination process, as numerous Republicans voted (rightly) to confirm a former ACLU staff lawyer. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer, but they voted (again, rightly) to confirm her. Why? Because elections, like ideas, have consequences. . . . In the interview, I did indeed suggest, and have suggested elsewhere, that caution and prudence be exercised (Burkean that I am) in shifting/modifying rules (that's the second snippet), but I likewise made clear that the 'filibuster' represents an entirely new use (and misuse) of a venerable tradition. . . .
"[O]ur friends are way off base in assuming that the CBS snippets, as used, represent (a) my views, or (b) what I in fact said."
Posted by: James | May 12, 2005 09:17 PM