The Record

ONE of the most heated rhetorical battles in the war over Democratic judicial filibusters concerns the question of whether those filibusters are “unprecedented.” Look in the Nexis database, and you’ll find hundreds of examples of Republicans saying yes, the filibusters are unprecedented, and Democrats saying no, they’re not.

One thing that can be said for certain is that if there is precedent for the Democrats’actions, there isn’t much of it. For all the disagreement, the argument boils down to just three cases: the failed 1968 nomination of Abe Fortas to be chief justice of the United States and the successful Clinton-era nominations of Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

About the Author

Byron York

Byron York is a former White House correspondent for National Review.

Featured Tags

ONE of the most heated rhetorical battles in the war over Democratic judicial filibusters concerns the question of whether those filibusters are “unprecedented.” Look in the Nexis database, and you’ll find hundreds of examples of Republicans saying yes, the filibusters are unprecedented, and Democrats saying no, they’re not.

One thing that can be said for certain is that if there is precedent for the Democrats’actions, there isn’t much of it. For all the disagreement, the argument boils down to just three cases: the failed 1968 nomination of Abe Fortas to be chief justice of the United States and the successful Clinton-era nominations of Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.