What is going on with Sen. Mary Landrieu? For months she rails against Priscilla Owens and nine other Circuit Courts of Appeals nominees by a Republican president, supporting the Democrat leadership in attempts to keep filibusters going to prevent all of them from coming up to a vote. Then she joins a cabal that preserves the rule that allows a minority to block nominees that enjoy committee and chamber majorities from coming up to a confirmation vote.
So then the vote to invoke cloture on the filibuster on Owens comes up and she votes to stop the filibuster. Then the vote on Owens comes up – and she votes to confirm her! Why did she not publicly proclaim this over two years ago when Owens first was nominated? Why did she, on 5/1/03, 5/8/03, 7/29/03, and on 11/14/03 vote to continue debate if all along she wanted to end it and vote for her?
Landrieu can offer two weak defenses for this behavior. First, she could argue that since Owens is for the Fifth Circuit, Louisiana’s, she felt she should support a “hometown” nomination (as did all other of the circuit’s senators, who also all happen to be Republicans). But just because Owens is from Texas and for the home circuit overrides all the past negativity Landrieu countenanced concerning Owens’ suitability to be on the bench?
She also might argue that she was voting with the leadership previously because she wanted to preserve the “principle” of the filibuster applied to appellate court nominees. That argument might actually work if there were any “principle” to it – this concept is two years old, was unprecedented in Senate history before then, and the older filibuster concept in general itself has been altered many times.
Of course, I guess principle has become redefined (“extraordinary circumstances”) with the deal. But let us state what this “principle” really is – a political tool of convenience manufactured by Senate Democrats whose party has been routed from national power, as a way to obstruct the majority and to try to reverse the results of the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections. That’s what Landrieu defended by her previous votes, and her present votes merely reinforce that.
By voting for Owens twice now, and a likely vote for Janice Rogers Brown, Landrieu is going to try to argue that she votes for Louisiana first and the party leadership second. But her previous record on cloture motions (for Brown, 11/14/03) and the inevitable logic behind them shows in fact she is a party-line Democrat, and deviates from that only as often as she thinks she needs to in order to try to fool the Louisiana people.
No comments:
Post a Comment