The Filibuster Flip-Flop

"You know that every measure, virtually every measure with any degree of controversy about it in the United States Senate requires 60 votes. That's the ordinary procedure, not the unusual."

—Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, CNN "Late Edition," January 14, 2007

FALSE! We've crunched the numbers. The reality is the current pattern of Republican obstruction—requiring 60 votes to bring any major legislation to the Senate floor for a vote—is unprecedented. Senate Republicans are on a pace to filibuster almost three times more often than the Democrats did as the minority party in the 109th Congress (2005-2006).

Research by McClatchy Newspapers' Washington Bureau also reveals that the Republicans' routine use of the filibuster is far from ordinary in Senate history.

But what about Democratic filibusters against Bush judicial nominees? The truth is Republicans blocked more of President Clinton's judicial nominees than Democrats have of President Bush's. Get the facts.

When Democrats were more selectively using the filibuster while Republicans controlled the Senate, Misssissippi Sen. Trent Lott was quoted in 2003 as saying, "'[Filibustering] is wrong. ... And if they insist on persisting with these filibusters, I'm perfectly prepared to blow this place up. No problem." (The Clarion-Ledger, May 23, 2003)

But now that his party is in the minority, Lott says: "'The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail...and so far, it's working for us.'" (Roll Call, April 18, 2007)

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (as Majority Whip through 2006)

"[If the] Democrats want our cooperation, they'll give the president's judicial nominees an up-or-down vote."
Laurie Kellman. "Democrats Warned Not to Block Bush's Judicial Nominees." San Diego Union-Tribune. 17 November 2006..

"This kind of sort of random selection of people to be denied an up-or-down vote, it seems to all of us, is not an appropriate way to end the controversy."
News Hour with Jim Lehrer "Judicial Wars." PBS. 13 May 2005.

"[If the] Democrats want our cooperation, they'll give the president's judicial nominees an up-or-down vote."
Laurie Kellman. "Democrats Warned Not to Block Judges." San Francisco Chronicle. 17 November 2006.

"Like the three presidents before him, President Bush will spend his last two years in office with the opposition party in control of the Senate. Like them, he has a right to expect that his nominees will receive an up or down vote."
Mitch McConnell. "Prepared Remarks of U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell." 4 January 2007.

Senator Bill Frist, R-Tenn. (Senate Majority Leader through 2006)

"In other words, I have sought to address Democrats' grievances while holding true to the core principle of an up-or-down vote. So far, my Democrat colleagues have rejected all efforts at compromise, and continue to insist on a new, 60-vote standard. Such a position is unacceptable."
"It's Time for an Up or Down Vote." USA Today.com. 15 May 2005.

"One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end … [This use of filibusters is a] formula for tyranny by the minority."
(Source: Helen Dewar and Mike Allen. "GOP May Target Use of Filibuster." 13 December 2004.

"Republicans believe in the regular order of fair up-and-down votes and letting the Senate decide yes or no on judicial confirmations free from procedural gimmicks like the filibuster, and I hope Senator Reid and others know our door is always open to reasonable proposals for fair up or down votes for judicial nominees."
Shailagh Murray and Dan Balz. "Democrats, GOP Ends Talk on Filibusters." 17 May 2005.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah

"Pursuant to Rule 22 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a modern-day filibuster prevents an up-or-down vote on a nomination unless cloture is invoked. Under the present application of the rule, a vote of 60 Senators is required to end debate by invoking cloture. What makes the filibusters of Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen so outrageous is that the Senators perpetuating this obstructionist ploy aren't demanding the opportunity for extended debate. There is no dispute that there has been plenty of debate on these nominations. Everyone has had an opportunity to be heard, and all the issues have been repeatedly scrutinized."
Orrin Hatch. "Statement of the Honorable Orrin Hatch United States Senator Utah." United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. 6 May 2003.

Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky.

"The United States Senate faces an unprecedented crisis brought on by the minority party. Judges who have been nominated by the President of the United States to the federal bench have been held up by a filibuster and cannot get a fair up-or-down vote. This unfair tactic is breaking years of Senate tradition. The issue of blatant obstructionism the Democrats are displaying should not be ignored anymore. I support a change in the rules of the Senate to allow for an up-or-down vote on judicial nominations. We must not let the minority party circumvent the Constitution, and take away the right of the President to have his judicial nominees voted on by a simple up-or-down vote."
Jim Bunning. "The Duty to Vote Up-or-Down." 29 August 2005.

Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C.

"Mr. President, when the Constitution was drafted so many years ago, it outlined a process by which the President of the United States would nominate judges with the 'advice and consent' of the U.S. Senate. The filibuster expands the Senate's advice and consent role in nominations well beyond what the Constitution envisioned. And for too long, politics has prevented the Senate from doing its constitutional duty."
Elizabeth Dole. "Senator Dole Calls For 'Up or Down' Vote on Judicial Nominations." 13 November 2003.

Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.

"Yet for the past two years, the Senate has failed to carry out this duty because the minority party has filibustered several of President Bush's judicial nominees. The minority has blocked the majority from having an up-or-down vote. Not only does the Constitution require an up-or-down vote, denial of an up-or-down vote goes against basic principles of fairness; it also is unprecedented in Senate history."
Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss. "Filibusters Obstruct the Senate's Duty." 24 May 2005. The Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman

"All judges deserve an up-or-down vote. This simple point is our best argument because it is consistent with fundamental fairness. Any way you ask the question, overwhelming majorities of Americans believe all judicial nominees deserve an up-or-down vote in the Senate, especially when they have majority support. As we discuss this issue, focusing on the fundamental fairness of an up-or-down vote for all nominees resonates strongly with the American people."
Ken Mehlman. "RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman Memo: Public Opinion on Judicial Appointments." Republican National Committee. 26 April 2005.