Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Filibuster hypocrisy

If the sign of a great mind is the ability to hold two opposing ideas at the same time, the sign of a great partisan is the ability to hold two opposing ideas depending on whether your party is in power. And the Senate, as Dana Milbank notices, has some great partisan, particularly when it comes to filibustering judicial nominees.

By Ezra Klein  |  November 18, 2009; 11:18 AM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Republicans more interested in ideological purity than Democrats
Next: Richard Foster on the Medicare Part D debacle


This is pretty far down the list of things I find hypocritical about the filibuster discussion. Republcians said it was unprecedented for democrats to use the filibuster in the way that that they did. Now its clearly precedented.

Posted by: spotatl | November 18, 2009 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Goose and gander reference here. Pot kettle reference here. Dems don't say that filibusters of judicial nominees are unconstitutional (the argument that repiglicans made), just that they are uncalled for, stupid, and delay the work of the senate. It is actually a more reality based critique of the repiglicans than the one the repiglicans during the bush years. And David Hamilton is a moderate in the mainstream of judicial thought, unlike the radical rightwingers, bush tried to push through. Obama should really start nominating some more progressive judges to the federal bench.

Posted by: srw3 | November 18, 2009 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Like Spotatl said. Do you really think that it's reasonable for Republicans to operate with one hand tied behind their backs? If Democrats are going to use the filibusters that way, Republicans have no choice but to do the same. This is as hypocritical as someone who disapproves of violence defending himself against a mugger.

Democrats, on the other hand, denounced the filibuster bitterly while they were in power. When Republicans were in power, they began using it on judicial nominations. Now they hate it again.

Posted by: MikeR4 | November 18, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company