May 18, 2005

Oh, that liberal media

Nice Q&A between Scott McClellan and a reporter. And by nice I mean completely asshatted on the side of the reporter. Heavens know that he's an unbiased journalist and all. Sure he is. Excerpt:


Q Scott, the Senate has managed to function -- or not function, as the case may be -- for more than 200 years without a ban on judicial filibusters. Is the President concerned about the historic nature of what's being talked about up on the Hill?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, John, the Senate is working to move forward on their constitutional responsibility, which is to give nominees and up or down vote. One of the priorities for this President is to put people on the bench that are highly qualified and that have a conservative judicial philosophy -- people that show judicial restraint when it comes to the bench. And there are a number of vacancies that the Senate has not moved forward on.

You've had a minority of Senate Democrats blocking up or down votes for these nominees. All we're asking for is for these nominees to receive a simple up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate. Unfortunately, there are some Senate Democrats that have played politics in taking this to an unprecedented level. We have not seen anything like this in our 214-year history in the Senate. So I would turn that around on you and look at it from the other perspective.

Q Well, let me ask two questions about what you just said. Where in the Constitution are judicial nominees guaranteed an up or down vote? And what about the impact of this whole so-called "nuclear option" on this idea of equal representation in the Senate?

MR. McCLELLAN: There are some judicial emergencies that we're talking about here, where people need to be put into these positions. There are vacancies now. And Senate Democrats have been blocking those nominees from receiving an up or down vote.

In terms of the Constitution, the role of the President is to appoint qualified individuals to the bench. The role of the Senate is to provide their advice and consent. It's not to provide advice and block. And what we have seen is that Senate Democrats are taking this to an unprecedented level, something we have not seen in those 214 years that you reference.

And so we would hope that they would move forward in giving all of these nominees an up or down vote, because all of them are well-qualified and would do an outstanding job.

Q What about this equal representation idea?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q What about the impact of this nuclear option on the equal representation idea?

Now imagine a similar exchange between this particular reporter and Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid:

Q Rep. Pelosi, you've mentioned how sacrosanct the filibuster is to the Senate. However, Senator Robert Byrd(D) once changed the number of votes needed on legislative filibusters by a simple rule change. I don't remember a similar outcry from the Democrats then. What's changed since then?
Or...

Q Senator Reid, members of your party stated during the Clinton presidency that they were completely opposed to judicial filisbusters, but now support them as a way of opposing President Bush. Can you explain the about face for any reason other than the fact that the political party of the current president differs from your's?

Can't do it, can you?

Update: Same topic at the New Criterion.

Update: And still more at Powerline.

Posted by Physics Geek at May 18, 2005 02:41 PM StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Comments