MORE REPUBLICAN HYPOCRISY

The Rethuglicans say they don't want an activist judge on the Supreme Court.

Let's face it, they don't want anyone on the high court who does not fit into the pigeon-hole that a member of said court should fit into.

Yesterday on "Fuks Nuz Sunday" Sen. Jon Kyl, a Rethuglican from Arizona, and Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Rethuglican disguised as a Democrat both said that a filibuster of any SCOTUS nominee of President Obama was not out of the question.

How things have changed since the Rethuglicans lost control of Congress.

From Campaign for America's Future:

Just four years ago, Senate Republicans were up in arms over the possibility that Democrats might filibuster against the most extreme of President Bush’s judicial nominees. In 2005, conservatives threatened to invoke the “nuclear option,” a parliamentary maneuver in the Senate which would override a filibuster and confirm judicial nominees on a straight majority vote.

At that time, most of the Republicans now in the Senate said that it was wrong, or even unconstitutional, to filibuster a judicial appointment. Our friends at Media Matters have set up a webpage that provides all the relevant quotes. For example:

Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY):

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.

Senator Thad Cochran (R-MS):

There should be no question in anyone's mind about my intentions. I will work in concert with our leader, and with the distinguished Majority Whip, Mr. McConnell, to end filibusters of judicial nominations in the Senate.

Senator John Cornyn (R-TX):

I believe, about the process of reestablishing the precedent of majority rule that had prevailed for 214 years in the Senate, that would say any President's nominees, whether they be Republican or Democrat, if they have the support of a majority of the Senate, will get an up-or-down vote in the Senate. Senators who believe these nominees should be confirmed can vote for them and those who believe they should not be confirmed can vote against them.

John Ensign (R-NV):

We must put an end to this mockery of our system before it becomes impossible to undo the damage. I am sure a lot of Americans believe this is politics as usual. It is not. Filibustering of judicial nominations is an unprecedented intrusion into the longstanding practice of the Senate's approval of judges.

Judd Gregg (R-NH):

There never was a filibuster of a majority-supported judicial nominee until a couple of years ago... It is inconsistent with the Constitution and with the Framers' intent as documented in the Federalist Papers and the notes of James Madison.

Orrin Hatch (R-UT):

All we are asking is the 214-year tradition of the Senate that judicial nominees not be filibustered be followed. That has been the tradition of the Senate up until President Bush became President. All we are asking is that every one of these qualified nominees who have reached the floor receive an up-or-down vote. That is all we are asking.

Many, many more similar quotes are available at the Media Matters website.

So there’s not going to be a filibuster of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, right? Don’t hold your breath!

To read the rest go here.