Power Line’s Inconsistency on Up or Down Votes for Judicial Nominees

Is Paul Mirengoff suggesting that Harriet Meirs doesn’t deserve an up or down vote by the Senate? Doesn’t that go against the long history of PRO-UP-OR-DOWN VOTE rhetoric spewed on Powerline Blog?

Americans for Better Justice: “At the same time, those who believe that Miers is not highly qualified and not demonstrably conservative (or orignialist, or non-activist, or whatever) are well within their rights in calling for the president to withdraw the nomination and substitute someone better.”

If she truly isn’t qualified, doesn’t the majority of the Senate (that’s the GOP) have enough intellectual honesty to simply vote her down based on merit?

How strange to hear Powerline Blog stating that a nominee doesn’t deserve an up or down vote. Let’s look at a few posts from their past:

July 12, 2005 Pro Up or Down : John Hinderaker says McCain is right when he says all nominees deserve an up or down vote.

July 09, 2005 Pro Up or Down : John Hinderaker says Dems “should not deny any nominee an up-or-down vote.”

June 14, 2005 Anti Up or Down : Paul Mirengoff criticizes John Kerry’s request for an up or down vote on anti-lynching legislation. Why are up or down votes important for judges (until today) but not important when it comes to bigotry?

June 13, 2005 Anti Up or Down : Paul Mirengoff flip-flops on up-or-down votes: “Personally, I believe that there is some slight value to retaining that right. That way, corrupt or clearly unqualified judges who somehow would win on an up-or-down vote despite their corruption or incompetence can be blocked.”

June 3, 2005 Pro Up or Down : John Hinderaker flip-flops back to demanding an up or down vote for all nominees: “The principle we’ve now agreed on is that every judicial nominee should receive an up or down vote on the Senate floor–which is exactly the compromise that Bill Frist proposed.”

May 25, 2005 Pro Up or Down : Paul Mirengoff claims that any senator who denies nominees an up or down vote by cutting a deal with Dems (to avoid a filibuster) will eliminate their chances of being president. [ed. Frist managed to find a much more effective way to do that.]

May 23, 2005 Pro Up or Down : Paul Mirengoff bashes Sen. Graham for compromising on a few judicial nominees, thus denying them a right to an up or down vote: “Senator Graham and his friends have likely given away one of the president’s most important powers — the power to nominate Supreme Court Justices of his choosing and get an up-or-down vote on them. I hope they enjoy the praise they are about to get from the Washington Post and the New York Times.”

May 17, 2005 Pro Up or Down : Powerline states that reporters, “were exhibiting the same kind of anti-administration partisanship that got Newsweek into trouble” by asking McClellan to explain where in the constitution it says jusicial nominees deserve an up or down vote.

May 10, 2005 Pro Up or Down : Byron York and John Hinderaker both post in favor of an up or down vote on judicial nominees.

May 8, 2005 Pro Up or Down : Powerline’s Scott Johnson pens a column for The Weekly Standard called “They Were Against It, Before They Were For It” that explains the changing positions of Dems on filibusters. Quite similar to how Powerline used to be for up or down votes but would now believe nominees don’t deserve up or down votes (only 5 months later).

April 30, 2005 Pro Up or Down : Powerline says Frist’s proposal to guarantee up or down votes on judicial nominees. Says it seems like a good idea to him [pocket rocket].

April 15, 2005 Pro Up or Down : Paul Mirengoff states that Dems are being dishonest by wanting to filibuster certain judicial nominees: “This transcript from Brit Hume’s Wednesday night interview with law professor Jonathan Turley confirm how dishonest the Democrats are being when it comes to explaining their efforts to deny an up-or-down vote on ten of the president’s judicial nominees.”

April 12, 2005 Pro Up or Down : Paul Mirengoff describes up or down votes as “fair-minded” only 6 months ago: “The Republicans should have the upper hand because all they will be asking for is an up-or-down vote. This will strike the public as fair-minded, as indeed it is.”

April 07, 2005 Pro Up or Down : Paul Miringoff claims we need to end, “the Democrats’ abusive efforts to deny the president’s nominees an up-or-down vote.”

March 15, 2005 Pro Up or Down : Paul Mirengoff looked forward to up or down votes in March: “It is pleasant to contemplate hearing the Democrats remind the country, as they bring the Senate’s business to a halt rather than grant an up-or-down vote to the judicial nominees of a president who received more than 50% of the vote, that they, the Democrats, gained 48 percent of the vote during the past three senatorial election cycles.”

November 6, 2003 Pro Up or Down : John Hinderaker states about Janice Rogers Brown: “I don’t agree with some of her background. But she should get an up-or-down vote.”

August 1, 2003 Pro Up or Down : Scott Johnson compares to denial of up or down judicial nominee votes to Nazi behavior.

One thought on “Power Line’s Inconsistency on Up or Down Votes for Judicial Nominees”

  1. What’s worse? Mirengoff’S inconsistency in applying up or down votes to nominees or his statements that there is not even one woman in the entire country who deserves to sit on the supreme court?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *