A very wise person once said, “I may not be able to stop hypocrisy but can do everything in my power to expose it.”
In the aftermath of the Republican response to the Democrats decision to deploy the “nuclear option,” on most Presidential nominees, hypocrisy may replace crow at the Thanksgiving Day table. Instead, I may fast forward to Christmas, because that’s how long it would take me to go through the Republican contradictions on this matter. The talking points they have branded alone (illegal power grab) is that. I choose to focus on Sean Hannity.
Though I seldom agree with Hannity on domestic affairs, I often listen to his opening monologue to hear the right’s perspective on major developments of the day. I’m not quite sure why? He and company do not technically run the Republican Party, though many times, it sure seems that way. At any rate, yesterday’s Senate vote made it one such day. And he offered a piñata of criticism for the Democrats. Well, right back at you Mr. Hannity, right back at you.
The impetus for Senate Democrats using the “nuclear option” involved three of President Obama’s nominees to the DC Circuit Court that were unable to clear the 60 vote threshold required for an up or down vote on the Senate floor. Now Republicans faced this predicament at the start of George W. Bush’s second term so Hannity can’t credibly blast the move altogether. But that sure didn’t stop him from trying. In fact, to condemn the Democrats for their latest move, Hannity had to so carefully construct his argument that verbal gymnastics would be a major understatement.
Hannity claims that while the Republicans threatened to go nuclear, they never followed through. That’s a technicality. And fortunately for history’s sake, my memory is longer than Mr. Hannity’s, and not for convenience sake.
The entire Senate Republican leadership, led by Majority Leader Bill Frist was furiously lobbying for a rules change. The Majority Whip at the time was some dude named Mitch McConnell
Frist was within 24 hours of bringing the matter to a vote. They had secured backing from many “Old Guards” who were ambivalent about making the change, including Senators Thad Cochran, Richard Lugar, and Ted Stevens. The change may have passed (48 votes were certain, including members of the current leadership, such as John Cornyn). But then the “Gang of 14” intervened, a mix of seven Republicans and seven Democrats, the most senior, Robert Byrd and John McCain, and the most junior, Mark Pryor and Ken Salazar). The foundation of that agreement was barring an “extraordinary circumstance,” each would oppose an attempt to filibuster a nominee.
With his hands tied, Frist was largely silent. But who expressed more anger than virtually anyone about the compromise in the days — and years ahead; Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and the rest of the far right, who argued that the “Gang” actually compromised the ability of the President to name an ideological favorite, an argument that, for better or for worse, I don’t necessarily disagree with.
Still, the fragile compromise worked. Why? Because Democrats, most against their better judgement, refused to stand in the way of nine of the ten most controversial nominees they had previously been holding up (both parties had a gentleman’s agreement to throw one, William Sahd overboard).
Hannity played clips of Democrats, including then Senators Obama and Biden, along with Reid, Durbin, and a handful of others denouncing the proposed scheme. Some day, they argued, that there will be a Democratic President, so, by setting the “nuclear” precedent, do Republicans really want to be so short-sighted. And they were right. But 2005 was a time that, save the battles for the Supreme Court, many judicial affairs were not ultra-partisan. That has changed.
Fast forward eight years. One can say the Democrats tried every not to go through that route. For four years, the Democrats have watched as the GOP held the floor in knots over the allowance of nominees – particularly Judicial, but also Executive, to get an up or down vote. Twice as many Obama nominees have been subjected to filibusters than Bush’s,. That shifts the argument from less about the rights of the minority, but the right to abuse.
This year saw some alleviation of it with a rules change limiting the debate for District Court nominees to two hours from 30. And for a brief shining moment, the brink of going “nuclear” was spared earlier this year when McCain and Reid reached an agreement that allowed stranded Executive Branch nominees to get a vote. It could have been stopped with the Circuit Court nominees.
There could have been another Gang now and McCain could have let it. But instead, what does he do? He states that the district court nominations did qualify as an “extraordinary circumstance.” That’s funny. Neither McCain or anyone else, including Ted Cruz, has taken issue with their qualifications. But with the DC Court being divided between four Democrats and four Republicans confirming even one of these three nominees would shift the balance. So Republicans cited what Democrats did eight years ago; that the court’s “case-load is too light” for more judges. My problem is not holding things up for ideological. But come out and say it. Don’t hide behind phony arguments.
Hannity is right. This ability to filibuster nominees has been in affect since 1789. It is designed for the very purpose of allowing the minority to have a say. But it is abused. Remember, one effective tool for getting Civil Rights legislation passed was reducing the threshold for a filibuster from 67 votes to 60.
Yes, Reid did say back in 2005 that if the change went through, Republicans would “rue the day” that the Senate went nuclear. Eventually, when there is a Republican President and Senate (and some day there will be), Democrats may feel the heat as well. But given how close Senate Republicans took it in 2005, it’s evident that next time, they would have succeeded. Given that, the regret for Democrats would be if they had let this opportunity pass for their own nominees. In other words, it was always going to happen. It was just a matter of who got there first.
Legend has it that when FDR broke a tax pledge that he had once made on the campaign stump in Pittsburgh, the best thing to do was deny being in Pittsburgh. Hannity and company can’t deny advocating exactly the same thing the Democrats just did. But that never stops them from trying.