In 2003, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., made a principled argument against filibustering judicial nominations. “We are really changing the constitutional design of what it takes to basically nominate and approve any judge,” he said. In 2005, Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., also correctly argued that “all of the president’s nominees — both now and in the future — deserve a fair up or down vote.” So shouldn’t that mean that they both were among the 10 GOP lawmakers who voted Tuesday to end the filibuster of President Obama’s nomination of U.S. District Judge David Hamilton (in photo)? It should, but they weren’t.
Native Kansan and Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., hopes that lawmakers from both parties will finally declare a truce in their partisan fights over judicial nominations, thus ending such hypocrisy. “The Hamilton nomination would be a good time to do that,” he said. But apparently not for Roberts and Brownback.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- okobserver on Palin a charismatic gal with crib notes
- Shocker_1 on Palin a charismatic gal with crib notes
- CapnAmerica on Palin a charismatic gal with crib notes
- Shocker_1 on Palin a charismatic gal with crib notes
- Shocker_1 on Open thread 2/9
- Heckler on Palin a charismatic gal with crib notes
- HLP on Open thread 2/9
- CapnAmerica on Palin a charismatic gal with crib notes
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 2/9
- Shocker_1 on Palin a charismatic gal with crib notes
11 Comments
Hey Obstructionist senators, just give him an up or down vote, else you’ll force the dems to use the ‘nuclear option’!
Judicial nominees deserve an up or down vote by the full Senate. I said it when the Democrats pulled thier little hissy fits about a nominee, and I said it over Sontomayer. The President gets the priviledge of putting forth his nominees. The advise and consent clause doesn;t say…..advise and refuse to vote. Chickenschitts.
Oh, was excited there for a second …
- thought they were talking about the fillet busters at all you can eat ‘Catfish’ at Fat Ernies.
Roberts and Brownback were agin fillibusters afore they were fer them!
Typical Brownback and Roberts – they want one set of rules for everyone but themselves.
Repubs always want to rule one way but be ruled another. Need to give them what they gave.
Brownback was against filibusters over nominations before he was in favor of them.
Hypocrite. Say NO to Brownback!
“Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., also correctly argued that “all of the president’s nominees — both now and in the future ”
Read more: http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/#ixzz0XGGdirof
In one of his more colorful moods, Roberts would probably say “Like we’re apt to say in Ks., Brownback speaks with forked tongue”, but then he’d be implicating himself also.
Sam Brownhole has been nothing but an embarrassment to the state of Kansas. He’s a shameless hypocrite.
Pat Roberts is not much better. He’s an embarrassment and a disappointment.
Roberts never met a fili he didn’t want to bust, back in cattle country.
This kind of spells it out. Yet, Kansas will still vote for these people (on principal).