Jeff Sessions

Sessions: Obama "Sees the Constitution as an Inconvenience"

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on April 29, 2010 - 10:07am

Sen. Jeff Sessions has already made it abundantly clear that he intends to oppose pretty much anyone that President Obama nominates to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court, and he keeps coming up with new reasons why, despite the fact that Obama has not even made the announcement yet.

But I have to say that his latest justification is rather remarkable, as he is now accusing Obama of seeking a nominee who has no respect for the Constitution and who sees it merely as an "inconvenience" to be sidetracked ... just as Obama does:

Sen. Jeff Sessions says that a Supreme Court nominee who followed President Obama's legal philosophy of considering the impact of a decision rather than following the law would not be qualified for the high court.

“He said that he wanted a judge who would consider the impact the decision would have on ordinary Americans,” Sessions (R.-Ala.) said in an interview with HUMAN EVENTS. “That’s a call to something other than the law and the facts. That’s a call to something more akin to politics than law. And so again I think the President’s presenting a troubling philosophy, and you have to assume that’s the kind of judge he’s going to nominate.”

Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said that kind of standard shouldn’t be confirmed whether it’s espoused by a liberal or conservative.

“You can have a liberal or conservative judge who has such strong personal views that they can’t -- and won’t -- follow the law,” Sessions said. “Both of those are disqualified.”

He questioned whether Obama considers the Constitution when making decisions. “I think the American people are coming to recognize that the President sees the Constitution as an inconvenience…a handicap to achieving the agenda that he has,” he said.

Kyle Mantyla's blog

PFAW

Filed under:

Sen. Sessions' Newfound Love For the Filibuster

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on November 30, 2009 - 2:56pm

Back in 2005, when the Gang of 14 came together to thwart the Senate Republican majority's efforts to end the use of the filibuster against President Bush's judicial nominees, Sen. Jeff Sessions could barely hide his disappointment that he and his Republican colleagues did not get the chance to deploy the "nuclear option":

I am disappointed that this agreement did not provide the other nominees the right to a vote. I was prepared to support the Constitutional option, because these systematic filibusters amounted to an affront to the Constitution and could not be allowed to stand. I hope that all nominees will now receive fair treatment in this body and that the character assassinations and filibusters will disappear.

But now times have changed and Sessions is writing op-eds in the Washington Post saying that for Republicans not to filibuster President Obama's nominees would amount to "unilateral disarmament":

To be clear, I believe that the president is entitled to a reasonable degree of deference on his judicial nominations. I supported more than 90 percent of President Bill Clinton's judicial nominees, and I hope I am able to do the same for President Obama, even if they would not be my top choices.

But I take seriously the Senate's constitutionally mandated role to "advise and consent," and I am obligated to oppose nominees who have demonstrated either an unwillingness to subordinate themselves to the Constitution or a desire to advance a political, social or economic agenda from the bench.

This year, a number of my colleagues and I have voted against just three judicial nominees, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Only in the case of Judge Hamilton have we raised a procedural objection to Majority Leader Harry Reid's desire to proceed to a vote.

For Republicans to ignore the changed rules would be to acquiesce in a system where 60 votes are needed to confirm judges nominated by Republicans, but only 51 are required to confirm judges nominated by Democrats. To allow such a double standard would be akin to unilateral disarmament.

So Sessions hated the filibuster when it was being used against President Bush's nominees and wanted to get rid of it entirely, but was unable to do so due to an agreement among a handful of Senators, and now he is that it would be irresponsible for him not to launch filibusters against President Obama's nominees, despite saying just a few years back that he hoped that "filibusters will disappear"?

And for the record, Sessions' claim that he's "voted against just three" of Obama's judicial nominees means that he's voted against fully 30% of Obama nominees ... that would be akin a Democratic senator having voted against nearly 100 [PDF] of President Bush's judicial nominees.

Kyle Mantyla's blog

PFAW

Filed under:

Sessions Seeks To Filibuster David Hamilton, Leave Him In "Unconscionable Limbo"

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on November 2, 2009 - 2:01pm

Back in March, President Obama nominated David Hamilton to a seat on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and immediately the Right set about trying to kill his nomination. They failed and Hamilton was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in June and has since been waiting for a confirmation vote on the Senate floor.

And if Sen. Jeff Sessions gets his way, Hamilton won't ever get one, as Sessions is trying to round up support for a filibuster of his nomination by sending around a letter [PDF] to his colleagues laying out his opposition to the nomination which concludes with this telling choice of language:

This is not the type of service that should be rewarded with a promotion. Indeed, this is one of those extraordinary circumstances where the President should be informed that his nominee is not qualified. [emphasis added]'

Back in 2005 when the Gang of 14 sought to prevent Republicans in the Senate from deploying the "nuclear option" by doing away with the use of the filibuster on nominations altogether, seven members of each party agreed that they would only support future filibusters under, you guessed it, "extraordinary circumstances":

Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should be filibustered only under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

Hamilton was literally the very first judicial nomination made by President Obama and he has the support of his home state senator, Richard Lugar ... but Sessions seeks to prevent an up-or-down vote on his nomination, which is quite a change from what he was saying back when President Bush was still in office:

I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would refuse to put an anonymous hold on a judge; that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty. If we don't like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her up or down. But don't hold them in this anonymous unconscionable limbo...

UPDATE: The above quote attributed to Sen. Sessions was actually Sessions quoting Sen. Leahy, though the context of the entire quote still makes clear that Sen. Sessions opposed the use of the filibuster against judicial nominations:

But this delay makes a mockery of the Constitution, makes a mockery of the fact that we are here working, and makes a mockery of the lives of the very sincere people who have put themselves forward to be judges and then they hang out here in limbo. Senator Leahy, now leading the filibuster, was on the floor talking about that. Back when the Clinton administration was submitting judges, he said:

I have had judicial nominations by both Democrat and Republican Presidents that I intended to oppose. But I fought like mad to make sure they at least got a chance to be on the floor for a vote. I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would refuse to put an anonymous hold on a judge; that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty. If we don't like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her up or down. But don't hold them in this anonymous unconscionable limbo. .....

Well, I see Chairman Hatch is here. I know the time is a bit drawn. Chairman Hatch and the Republican leadership have been consistent on this issue, even when it was not to their political benefit to do so. We have opposed the idea of filibusters and have not supported it. The Democrats oppose them when it is convenient and support them when it is convenient. I think their position is untenable as a matter of principle and as a matter of public policy, and our country will not be better off for filibustering judges.

As do other previous quotes from Sen. Sessions:

Of the many reasons why we shouldn't have a filibuster, an important one is the Article I of the Constitution. It says the Senate shall advise and consent on treaties by a two-thirds vote, and simply "shall advise and consent" on nominations.

Historically, we have understood that provision to mean--and I think there is no doubt the Founders understood that to mean--that a treaty confirmation requires a two-thirds vote, but confirmation of a judicial nomination requires only a simple majority vote. That is why we have never had a filibuster. People on both sides of the aisle have understood it to be wrong. They have understood it to be in violation of the Constitution.

...

I think the American people are getting engaged, and they are telling us "we are tired of obstructionism," "we are tired of delays," and "we believe these nominees deserve an up-and-down vote." I could not agree more.

Kyle Mantyla's blog

PFAW

Filed under:

Just The Sort of Conservatives The Right Had In Mind

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on May 19, 2009 - 1:54pm

For the last several weeks, Jeremy at Good As You has been keeping a running list of the right-wing groups and figures who have equated homosexuality with pedophilia in opposing marriage equality or hate crimes legislation.

To that list, he can now add William Smith. Who's William Smith, you ask. We'll let David Ingram at the Legal Times blog explain it:

The new chief Republican counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote a blog post last month in which he linked same-sex marriage to pedophilia, according to a Web site that has since been taken down.

William Smith’s post responded to a recent speech by Steve Schmidt, a Republican campaign consultant who advised Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign. Speaking in Washington to the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, Schmidt had urged Republicans to support same-sex marriage.

“I wonder if next week Schmidt will take his close minded stump speech to a NAMBLA meeting. For those unfamiliar with NAMBLA, the acronym is for North American Man Boy Love Association,” Smith responded on wsmith.org in a post dated April 20.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) announced Smith as chief counsel May 13, after Sessions replaced Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania as the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee. Sessions named three other lawyers to top positions as part of a sweep of Specter’s former committee staff.

Smith’s Web site is no longer visible, though Google has kept a “cached,” or archived, version of the site. It was visible earlier this month. The mailing address, e-mail address, and phone number on the Web site’s domain name registration match the address and phone number on Smith’s Alabama bar registration.

...

Smith’s post continued:

Schmidt would quickly tell you that he is not advocating that we support 60 year old men in their desire to rape 8 year old boys, but he would not classify his opposition as narrow minded. No! This is a principled position; there is some logic behind it, Schmidt would say.

Is Schmidt then going to take his close minded stump speech to the Bestiality Club? Again, his answer would be no, although there are a group of people who embrace this lifestyle.

Schmidt and other gay lifestyle proponents would say that my opposition is based on the slippery slope approach. I say that it is based on principle and that it is no more close minded than their position for gay unions. The difference between me and Schmidt is that I’m not a maverick. I’m guided by something called Christian principles. And I don’t need people in California, New York and Washington to tell me what the principles should be.

Not long ago, we noted that Religious Right groups were overjoyed that Sessions had been chosen to serve as ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee because, as Jay Sekulow put it, "he will bring in some conservative staff."

Presumably, Smith was just the sort of conservative they had in mind.