Hypocrisy on the Hill

Republican senators talked and talked last week. And then they talked some more.\nIn a move designed to draw attention to the blockage of President Bush's judicial nominees, the GOP staged nearly 40 hours of debate. The debate, which lasted through two nights, featured both parties taking to the floor and seemingly reading from talking points as they reiterated their positions.\nRepublicans pointed out that Democrats had taken the unprecedented step of filibustering judges. Filibustering, you will recall from high school government class, is when senators stall a vote by continually debating an issue; it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. According to the New York Times, Senate majority leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said, "Vote them up or vote them down, but just give them an honest up or down vote." I'm not too certain the rest of the Republicans weren't dutifully taking notes of Sen. Frist; their speeches all seemed to follow the same script.\nDemocrats, on the other hand, contend they are only blocking the most extreme judges, and that their actions are not without precedent. Democratic leader Tom Daschle, for his part, claimed that those complaining about the filibusters were "participants in the effort" to block the nominees of President Clinton, according to the Times. Because Republicans were in the majority for most of Clinton's presidency, they didn't have to go to the unusual step of filibustering; they could just deny Clinton's nominees a hearing.\nThe logic on both sides, surprisingly, is sound. Republicans are right that filibustering judges (six have been filibustered thus far) is a new and dangerous step. The precedent is horrible. As Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., was quoted in the Times, "We'll have our opportunity someday, and we'll make sure there's not another liberal judge, ever!" \nScary stuff.\nSantorum misses one very important point, though. Republicans did have their chance, and they did block judges. Their chance was during the Clinton presidency, when they often slowed the approval of judges down to a trickle. Quick channel surfing by C-SPAN2 during the Clinton presidency would often find Senate Democrats complaining about many of the same things as Republicans now find so contemptuous.\nBut Republicans didn't have to filibuster, because they were in the majority. Whether it is filibustering, denying a hearing or placing a secret hold on a nominee, the end result is the same: nominees were being denied a vote.\nI won't pass judgment on any of these individual nominees; I'll leave that up to senators. But what I have heard about those nominees blocked (of the six blocked, by the way, more than 160 have been confirmed -- a very large amount) suggests that their nominations deserve intense scrutiny. \nThe way to give these judges their due consideration, however, is not to hold a theatrical debate at the taxpayers' expense. Republicans have driven up the debt enough; they certainly could have made their point without keeping the Capitol building open (at a large cost) over two nights. \nThe way to give them consideration isn't by whining. This show by Republicans stinks of childish complaining because they couldn't get their way. Senators should be mature enough to deal with not getting their way. While the debate was going on, seniors were going without prescription drugs and soldiers were dying in Iraq. Those are truly important issues.\nBut the debate went forward. Republicans reiterated their hypocritical argument, and, at the end of the debate, Democrats blocked more judges. Overall, the discourse left much to be desired. Hopefully this isn't a sneak peak at the politics of the future.