Republicans Think Rules Are Only For Democrats

They did it again yesterday. The Senate Republicans filibustered a judicial candidate and then voted almost unanimously to maintain that filibuster (Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voted for cloture). This was a common occurrence in the last session of Congress, where Senate Republicans allowed very few of Obama's judicial appointments to get an up or down vote.

But when this session began the two parties agreed that they wouldn't filibuster judicial candidates that were voted out of committee. And that worked for a little while. But anyone who thought it would last just hasn't been paying attention to this modern crop of Republicans. Following rules they have agreed to and keeping their word are just not things they do very well.

And being hypocritical doesn't bother them at all. Back in the Bush administration many of these same Republicans went on record as saying that filibustering a judicial candidate was unconstitutional, since every president had the right to get an up or down vote on all his judicial appointments. Think Progress has gone back and looked at what some of these Republican senators said when Bush was president. Here's what they found:

• Lamar Alexander (R-TN): “I would never filibuster any President’s judicial nominee, period. I might vote against them, but I will always see they came to a vote.”

• Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA): “Every judge nominated by this president or any president deserves an up-or-down vote. It’s the responsibility of the Senate. The Constitution requires it.”

• Tom Coburn (R-OK): “If you look at the Constitution, it says the president is to nominate these people, and the Senate is to advise and consent.  That means you got to have a vote if they come out of committee.  And that happened for 200 years.”

• John Cornyn (R-TX): “We have a Democratic leader defeated, in part, as I said, because I believe he was identified with this obstructionist practice, this unconstitutional use of the filibuster to deny the president his judicial nominations.

• Mike Crapo (R-ID): “Until this Congress, not one of the President’s nominees has been successfully filibustered in the Senate of the United States because of the understanding of the fact that the Constitution gives the President the right to a vote.”

• Chuck Grassley (R-IA): “It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60, and that’s essentially what we’d be doing if the Democrats were going to filibuster.”

• Mitch McConnell (R-KY): “The Constitution of the United States is at stake.  Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges.  The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent.  But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules.  They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation.”

This makes me wonder what has changed (other than the president)? How can something be unconstitutional and wrong when Democrats do it but becomes patriotic and right when Republicans do the very same thing? Isn't that the very definition of hypocrisy?