Sunday, November 26, 2006

Brownback's Hypocrisy

"I will work to guarantee that judicial nominees receive an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate." (Brownback 2004 Campaign Proclamation of Principles)

“For four years we have been working to get an up or down vote on the president’s nominees—to have them approved by a majority of the Senate, as required by the Constitution . . . .All of the president’s nominees—both now and in the future—deserve a fair up or down vote." (Brownback Statement, 5/24/2005)

"I hope those tactics of obstruction will become the historical relics they deserve to be. . . . the President’s nominee deserves nothing less than a prompt, respectful confirmation hearing in the Judiciary Committee and a fair up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.” (Brownback Statement on Judicial Nominees, 7/1/2005)

“'All of the President’s nominees, both now and in the future, deserve a fair up-or-down vote,' said Sam Brownback, of Kansas. "(New Yorker, 11/14/2005)
"Sen. Brownback leaves judicial nominee in limbo over gay marriage issue." (USA Today 11/26/2006)
Brownback has placed a hold on the nomination of Janet Neff for a seat on the United States District Court in Michigan. Neff's nomination was approved by the Judiciary Committee last month, but Neff decided that she wasn't going to get a up or down vote because he's squeamish about gay marriage and Neff -- gasp -- once attended a lesbian commitment ceremony.


As we always knew, all of that crap about "up or down votes" and the "nuclear option" had nothing to do with principle and everything to do with cheap political points.

Oh, yeah, Brownback wants to be President.

1 comment:

Wil Robinson said...

I saw Brownback talking on ABC's Sunday morning show w/George Stephanoplous (sp?).

Of course, why WOULDN'T you hold up nomination because some judge decided to support their neighbor and friend?

Why do I feel like we're headed for more of the same bickering and pointless debates that distract from the true issues?