15 thoughts on “Twitter: The Nine: Alexander …”

  1. Alec Taylor

    Lamar Alexander’s appearance on this list is a bit unexpected.

    Brendan – you voted for him last year, and I assume that Loyette has met him as part of her southern conservative outreach program. Any insights?

  2. Alec Taylor

    Hold on, here’s a quote – via: Huffington Post

    “Even though Judge Sotomayor’s political and judicial philosophy may be different than mine, especially regarding Second Amendments rights, I will vote to confirm her because she is well qualified by experience, temperament, character and intellect to serve.”

  3. Brendan Loy

    Heh. Loyette has not met Lamar. But I did vote for him, because I felt that he had evolved into a principled, reality-based pragmatist — a conservative, yes, but a conservative I can respect, and the type of conservative I wish there were more of these days. His vote confirms this: he’s doing the intellectually coherent thing, sticking by the long-held GOP notion that the Senate’s advice & consent role is deferential to the president’s right to choose his nominee when it comes to simple ideological differences. Most of the party abandoned that principle today, sacrificing their ability to make that argument with a straight face the next time the roles are reversed, and accelerating a judicial-confirmation arms race with the Dems that can only lead to a major clash at some (perhaps not-too-distant-) future point when the MAJORITY party is against the president’s nominee.

  4. gahrie

    Do you think that maybe the Republican vote this time were a reaction to the Democratic votes on Alito and Roberts (and to a lesser extent their refusal to even bring many lesser judicial appointments up for a vote) even after the Republicans were defferential to Ginsburg?

  5. gahrie

    IMO, I think at this point it is incumbent on the Democrats to show good faith on the issue of judicial appointments.

  6. Alec Taylor

    I disagree – it was really a reaction to the Democrats’ refusal to confirm John J. Parker in 1930.

  7. Alec Taylor

    Hope the last comment wasn’t too snarky. It’s just that arguments of the “yeah, but they started it” variety tend to be really tiresome – no matter which side comes out with them.

  8. David K.

    So what you are saying gahrie, is that the GOP has decided the Democrats way of doing things is the correct one? Got it, thanks for letting us know 🙂

  9. gahrie

    My comment is a “they started it” comment. It’s more of a “damn I’m tired of standing here getting socked in the jaw and just taking it” comment.

    And no, the Democrat’s way isn’t the right way. It’s just tougher and tougher to convince people to stand there and take it on the jaw and not respond.

    I think Brendan and I both agree that defference to the president’s wishes if possible is the proper response.

  12. dcl

    Point of order, the Republicans started the not even bothering to bring lower court nominations to a committee vote under Clinton when the vacancy rate in the lower federal courts soared. A problem the Republicans quickly decided was a dire situation and fixed as soon as Bush was elected. So shut up with your holier than thou crap gahrie.

  13. gahrie

    I challenge you to compare the lower court nominations rates of all the presidents since Pres. Reagan.

    “[Harry] Reid and company have used the Senate filibuster rule to permanently deny votes to nominees with clear majority support. That’s never been done before.” (David Reinhard, op-ed, “Judge Not Lest Ye Be … Filibustered,” The Oregonian, 3/17/05)

    President Bush’s confirmation rate for appellate judges is the lowest of any modern President. “A better figure would compare Bush’s four-year appellate confirmation rate to recent presidents. According to the American Enterprise Institute’s John Lott Jr., Bush’s four-year rate was 69 percent, the lowest of any modern president. Bill Clinton’s rate was 74 percent.” (David Reinhard, Op-Ed, “Judge Not Lest Ye Be … Filibuster,” The Oregonian, 3/17/05)

    In 1994, when the Democrats controlled both the Senate and the Executive Branch, President Clinton confirmed a record number of federal judges — 54 of these nominees were pushed through in the 3 months immediately prior to the 1994 elections. “President Clinton has gotten 129 federal judges confirmed by the Senate, more than any previous president during the first two years in office… 101 of his 129 judges were confirmed in 1994. That was the highest one-year total since Jimmy Carter won approval of 135 in 1979.” (Michael J. Sniffen, “Clinton Outdoes Predecessors In Filing Judicial Vacancies,” The Associated Press, 10/12/94)

  14. dcl

    What kind of fool cites op-ed’s as fact? And yes, filibusters have been used to stop nominations with majority support in the past and it will be done in the future. And while we are on the topic I’m shocked that Clinton got judges approved while his party controlled the Senate. The faux outrage of conservatives on this crap is almost as tiring as faux news…

  15. gahrie

    Do you dispute the facts in my citations?

    If not it doesn’t matter. If so, then I will find the citations the writer used.

Comments are closed.