Legalities
Life, Politics and the Law From ABC News Correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg
Jan Crawford Greenburg is a correspondent for ABC News' bureau in Washington DC. She covers politics, the Supreme Court and provides legal analysis for ABC News. She is a graduate of the University of Chicago's law school and is a member of the New York bar.
RECENT POSTS
- LIVESTREAMING THE SOTOMAYOR HEARINGS
- Supreme Court Puts Chrysler’s Sale to Fiat on Hold
- White House Contacted Sotomayor Before Souter Announced His Retirement
- Becoming Nominee Sotomayor
- Judge Wood Goes to Washington
- Obama: Fortifying Bush's policies on terror
- The Pitfalls of Politics
- A Stealth Nominee?
- Who's on the Way to the Court: Chart the Course
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
« Previous | Main | Next »
When the Shoe Fits
July 17, 2007 5:02 PM
Talk about the shoe being on the other foot.
Senate Democrats are hauling out cots and preparing for an around-the-clock session tonight to bash Republicans for blocking a vote on a proposal to withdraw troops from Iraq. They’re solemnly intoning that the all-nighter is a critical way of calling attention to obstructionist Republicans who are blocking the will of the majority by refusing to end the debate and vote. And the Republicans are blasting right back that the all-nighter is nothing more than a stunt that will solidify their resolve.
Sound familiar? It is. We heard it all in 2003, when Republicans (then in control of the Senate) used a similar ploy—right down to the cots--against Democrats who were blocking President Bush’s judicial nominees. Ineffectual Republican leaders had sat by for months while energized Democrats picked off Bush’s judges—until the Big Night when they had the sleepover on the Hill. They hammered those irksome Democrats in the minority who were mounting the first-ever filibuster of appellate court judges.
And then everyone went home, and Democrats kept their resolve. The filibuster would prove enormously effective and keep some of Bush's nominees—Estrada, Kulh, Owen, Brown--from subsequently making it to the Supreme Court when the President had a chance to fill two vacancies.
But of course, in 2003, Republicans and Democrats had a different spin on the whole all-night session/filibuster thing. It’s almost like we’re looking at a big cartoon with talking points in those quote balloons above the senators’ heads. Someone sneaked in and switched the quotes all around.
Here’s what then-Senate Minority Whip Harry Reid had to say back in 2003, when Republican leaders announced their all-nighter to protest the Democrats’ refusal to allow a vote on Bush’s appellate court judges: “I have never seen such amateur leadership in all the time I’ve been in Congress.”
Here’s what Reid—now the Democratic leader—says today after announcing he is going to employ the very same strategy as those amateur Republicans four years ago: “This week, we’ll make Republicans answer for their refusal to allow an up or down vote on the most important issue facing our country today. We’re going to work today. We’re going to work tomorrow and work tomorrow night. We’re going to continue working on this until we get a vote.”
Sen. Chuck Schumer, a leader in the Democratic-led filibuster back in 2003 and had this to say during the Republican all-nighter back then: “What we’re having here is a rehash of arguments we’ve heard over and over and over again. It’s not going to change anything.”
And now, a decidedly more optimistic Schumer on the eve of the Democratic all-nighter: “We’re stepping up the pressure.”
Sen. Dick Durbin, who also helped lead the Democratic filibuster of Bush’s judges in 2003, had this to say back then: Republicans were failing to find compromises to “resolve issues the American people are really concerned about.” Instead, Durbin said, Republicans were holding an all-nighter and “grinding red meat for their conservative wing.”
And now Durbin, the Senate’s second-ranking Democrat in 2007, on Republicans who are threatening filibuster: “If this were a majority vote, the vote of the Senate would reflect the majority feeling of the American people.”
Republicans are playing the same game. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell complaining this week about the Democratic all-nighter: “I think it is theater and bad theater at that. We are happy to report to work, and they could have the debate in the daylight or the evening, whatever they prefer.”
But in 2003, McConnell supported the all-nighter on judges and blasted Reid for his “callow, petulant characterizations” of the Republican leaders who were organizing it.
And finally, here’s Sen. Orrin Hatch four years ago, when Republicans were in control. He was mighty critical of the Democrats for their filibuster: “The only reason they won’t allow an up or down vote…is that they know they would lose.”
Or wait, was that Dick Durbin this week?
July 17, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (16)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
except the Republicans threw their all-nighter to get the Senate to do its job (confirm judges). Harry Reid's throwing his slumber party to get the Senate to do what's not its job (surrender to any and all enemies).
Posted by: jack | Jul 17, 2007 10:17:47 PM
All we want is an up or down vote. And for my republican friends. Redeploying our troops to focus on Al Quida in Afghanistan and Pakistan and elsewhere is not surrendering. Usama Bin Laden is still a threat to our country, but Bush has surrendered to them by allowing Al Quida to regain its pre 9/11 strength. For those of you unable to do the math, if your enemy gets stronger over a 5 year period, you're losing. The difference between us real Americans and right-wing partisan hacks is that we'd much rather protect the nation than the legacy of President Bush. Bush has been protecting Pakistan and Pakistan has provided safe harbor for Usama. If you're too blind to see that, you deserve the darkness.
Posted by: AppeaseThis | Jul 18, 2007 1:19:01 PM
Back in 2003 the Democrats were just stopping Washington. Now we have the Republicans continuing debate for a principled reason and the Democrats suddenly change their tune. It makes me sick. This Congress is awful. It gets nothing done because its priorities are all screwed up... no wonder it is more hated than Bush.
Posted by: Jane | Jul 18, 2007 3:43:30 PM
well now,Mr appeasethis perhaps it is you who are in the dark(ages that is).Are you advocating across the border attacks into yet another country to finish off UBL? A country who is at least attempting to aid us? A country whose leader is on very shakey ground even talking with us? A country in posession of nuclear weapons which might complicate things if he is ousted by the more radical elements? Would he even consider giving approval for us to legally cross his border knowing our reputation of retreat as soon as the American democratic party gets cranked up?Hell, with our reputation created by screaming liberals in Vietnam, Beruit, Mogondishu, Iraq I wouldn't invite you in for a birthday party!
Posted by: Gary | Jul 18, 2007 3:59:39 PM
What once was is again.
I would like to see our Senate representatives act like grown-ups.
They remind me of my children growing up.
Did too,did not,did too, did not,DID TOO,
DID NOT...MOM!
We abandon Iraq at our own peril.
Posted by: Harvey | Jul 18, 2007 4:47:39 PM
When in US history did the filibuster go from being the exception to being the rule? I'm thinking it was 1993-94 when Dole, et al., filibustered labor law and health care reform. Ever since then, it's been tit-for-tat. That's not to say that before that the Senate was a model of majority rule... rather, the obstruction was carried out in committees, etc.
Posted by: question | Jul 18, 2007 5:06:38 PM
Vote them all out, be they republican or democrat. Let them earn a living for a change. These people do not deserve to lead any debate, especially one as important as war policy.
That said, why are we having another go at something the president has already vetoed and promises to veto again? It is a waste of time and effort. There will be another election in 2008, and then maybe the democrats can win the majority they pretend they already have. Until then, find some common ground or go home and stop wasting our tax dollars.
Time to use some common sense my American friends. Politics should not be a profession. Let them know they should have kept a day job this next election.
Posted by: X | Jul 18, 2007 5:14:17 PM
"Democrats in the minority who were mounting the 'first-ever' filibuster of appellate court judges."
Democrats have introduced a new tradition of a filibuster. I fail to see why Repubicans are deemed evil for returning the favor.
Posted by: Joe Bruesch | Jul 18, 2007 5:39:18 PM
Amen to the Republians, about time they stand united.. I am tired of Democrats with their 49 vote majority in the 100 seat body of the senate thinking that they control the agenda.
What has the democratic congress done since they've been in power? Investigate, investigate, investigate, investigate.. Over 300 different investigation are going on in the US House and Senate currently.
Dingy Harry and Nancy Pelosi have not accomplished one crap, with the exception of the minimum wage. So much for the first 100 hours.
Posted by: Kalik | Jul 18, 2007 6:01:58 PM
How could someone compare filibustering Supreme Court nominees just because they don’t share the same ideas you do, to filibustering a law that congress passes to dictate war policy. And that’s when the war is finally heading in the right direction. Not to mention the hypocrisy of asking for a troop drawback while the Democrat were those who complaint that the President didn’t send enough troops.
Posted by: Joel | Jul 18, 2007 6:07:49 PM
It's been a long time since I've seen balanced reporting like this article. Good job Ms Greenburg. I hope ABC News is smart enough showcase your talent and that they will keep you around for a long time.
Posted by: Wes | Jul 18, 2007 6:12:05 PM
There is a difference, and the Republicans made that clear at the time. They said that they wanted to change the Senate rule for filbustering only as it applied to judicial confirmations. They never advocated the rule change for legislation.
This fact should have been mentioned in the otherwise "fair" article.
Posted by: Sam | Jul 18, 2007 7:37:55 PM
Kalik, Republicans have been filibustering every piece of legislation, even things that they support. How do you expect the Democrats to pass anything when Bush vetoes everything or Republicans filibuster it.
Posted by: Rick | Jul 19, 2007 2:44:45 AM
With republicans all I heard was "Nucuuular Option! ... How dare those minority Democrats try to do anything against our president who we blindly support 100% of the time"
Either way... Democratic hands are tied since they need 67 votes to override the veto. Too bad americans have no idea how their government works and accept a "do something" congress with 1 vote senate majority and veto-happy president.
Posted by: Eric | Jul 19, 2007 6:31:12 AM
Come on Jan - you're better than that. You know as well as any serious watcher of judicial confirmations that those weren't the "first ever" filibusters of appellate nominees. Remember the names Paez & Berzon? What were those cloture votes about? What was Senator Sessions engaged in? Just because the Democrats were more successful at filibustering judicial nominees while in the minority, doesn't mean it was the first time ever...
Posted by: Phil | Jul 19, 2007 3:45:15 PM
As the competitions between presidential candidates increase and tense up, the candidates need to be reminded of the critical issues that still trouble our society today. Issue such as global poverty needs to be address by our candidates to each and to the general public. As one of the nation that has pledge to fulfill the goals of Millennium Development Project, whose goal is the elimination of world hunger and poverty, the Bush Administration has not shown any substantial action to bring this fundamental problem to a stop. According to the Borgen Project, dedicated to fighting and ending Poverty around the world, only $19 billion dollars are needed annually to stop world wide poverty, hunger and malnutrition. However, more than $340 billion dollars has been poured into this “war on terror.” And each year, our country has a military budge of $522 billion dollars. It's time for a new leader who will be addressing an issue that affects 1.2 billion people everyday worldwide.
Posted by: Mstessyrue | Aug 8, 2007 6:06:35 PM
Post a comment
