Senate Republicans have successfully filibustered the nomination of Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It is the first time since 2005 that senators have rejected a judicial nomination, and while it is not common practice, Republicans argued that Liu’s controversial record constituted “extraordinary circumstances.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said that given the politically charged nature of Liu’s testimonies and written work, he should “run for Senate, [not] sit on the court.”
The final vote on cloture was 52 to 43, with one senator (Orrin Hatch of Utah) voting “present” — well short of the 60 votes required to end a filibuster. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska) was the only Republican to vote yes, while Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) was the only Democrat to vote no. Senators Bauchus, Hutchison, Moran, and Vitter did not vote.
“The filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check.”
– Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (May 18, 2005)
Thanks Alaska. Murkowski is even more of a train wreck than she was before the last election. Of course Miller shares a bit of blame for his horrific campaign, but the voters ultimately decided to send a RINO back to DC. Mr. Milquetoast votes "present". Good grief what next the invocation of Scottish law?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI really do not understand how Murkowski is (a) in the Republican Party; and (b) electable in Alaska.
Any explanations would be much appreciated.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRemind me again why Murkowski wasn't stripped of her seniority and committee assignments when she refused to accept losing the Republican primary?
Why is the Republican Party continuing to pretend that she is a Republican?
Wouldn't it be beneficial for the Party as a whole to adopt a policy of stripping party membership immediately from anyone that refuses to accept defeat in a primary?
She's only in office because of crossover votes from D's in a 3-way race they had no hope of winning. Rather than see a Conservative win, with no hope of a D win, Alaska D's voted for the RINO in sufficient numbers to gain a victory over the Conservative Republican in the race. Why pretend she's anything other than an Independent?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis really makes my day. Nice work NR!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePersistent and unremitting pressure can permit our conservative minority to minimize the damage Mr Obama does. Kudos for this move. Just watch for the recess appointment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen Miguel Estrada is confirmed to the court of appeals, then let Liu through. No sooner.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeems like there is a least some spine developing, in the past it would have been, "I did not vote to confirm, I just voted to allow the vote by the full chamber".
Of course anyone who has ever set foot on the UC Berkely campus should be immediately disqualified any way.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLooks like the Republicans have finally gotten their manhoods out of Al Gore's lock box.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMurkowski is a third-party Republican like Charlie Crist was. All of these establishment types wring their hands about Tea Partiers leading third party charges, then do it themselves.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat happened to Orrin? Back in the day he would have led the charge against the professor. Present! Might have just as well stayed home.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Tenncommentator - "What happened to Orrin? Back in the day he would have led the charge against the professor. Present! Might have just as well stayed home."
Actually, this is in perfect keeping with Hatch's long-held views on filibustering judicial nominations. While he may have led forceful dissents in previous nominations, he has never (I believe) voted "no" on cloture.
More can be read in his own words in a piece for NRO from 2005. (BTW - this is not a defense of his position, just correcting the record)...
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is one battle won, but the war [debate] continues.
He remains nominated until he withdraws or is recess appointed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat happened to the mantra "every nominee should be given an up or down vote by the full Senate"? I understand the Democrats fillibustered some Bush nominees, but how does the Republicans doing the same comport with the "vote up or down" principle?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI hate to point this out, but...didn't we all go ballistic when Democrats used this same tactic against qualified nominees? I have no doubt that Professor Liu has a warped and probably destructive view of constitutional law, so I would advise voting against him, but weren't we making argument that nominees ought to have up-or-down votes back in 2003-2005?
In any case, if we claim to stand on principle, only to employ the same questionable tactics as the other side when it's convenient to us, why ought folks take our high-minded arguments seriously?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI guess no one here remembers the *screaming* by conservatives over judicial filibusters in 2005 when the shoe was on the other foot.
Like Emily Litella said, "Never mind..."
Pathetic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo craig: Here is my read on the vote. The lay of the land has changed. The new norms permit what was done today.
when the Democrats launched their scortched earth approach we were back on our heels a bit. The Borking of Bork and the lynching of Thomas set a new standard of behavior. Those techniques also worked well for the Democrats.
It would be, IMHO, foolish of us to play by different rules. If those are the tactics, and they work, then let's use them. To me this is analogous to conservatives adopting Alinsky's rules.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm glad they filibustered Liu, but assuming Republicans take the Senate in 2012 they're going to have to end the filibuster. We can't allow minority Democrats to obstruct important gains like repealing Obamacare, etc.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCurmudgeon: Bork and Thomas happened many years before the chorus of "up or down vote for all nominees" during the Bush Administration. The "rules have changed" only because it's convenient for the party in power, not based on any principle. No wonder the public has little faith in cynical politics on both sides of the aisle.
You can put lipstick on the pig, but it's still a pig.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGoodwin Liu? Ha!, more like Goodwin Liu-ser.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>"I understand the Democrats fillibustered some Bush nominees"
Some? This sort of understatement is unlike you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse