Monday, April 5, 2010

Preemptive Fillibustering

I suppose you could call it efficiency in government. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens hasn’t retired yet and President Obama hasn’t nominated a successor, but Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) is already willing to filibuster the nominee no matter who it is.

I want a judge who will read the law and declare it in each case that comes before him or her as it should be — in other words, don’t have somebody coming in with preconceived attitudes — I’m going to be tough on the executive, or, I’m going to be for the little guy, or whatever their preconceived attitudes are. We’ve had too much of that. […]

I think the president will nominate a qualified person. I hope, however, he does not nominate an overly ideological person. That will be the test. And if he doesn’t nominate someone who is overly ideological, I don’t think — you may see Republicans voting against the nominee, but I don’t think you’ll see them engage in a filibuster.

Nice little shot across the bow there, Senator. Of course, this is the same senator who objected strenuously to the idea of filibustering a judicial nominee…when the Republicans were doing the choosing. But now that it’s the Democrats, well, all bets are off. And it’s all the Democrats’ fault, too.

KYL: I would prefer to go back to the situation where it is not done by either party, but the Democrats won that fight. They filibustered Miguel Estrada. He never got on the court. Seven other circuit nominees.

And that lack of bipartisanship is probably the fault of the Democrats, too.