Our Views: A new abuse on judgeship

In an unfairness that he has denounced in others, U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., is blocking the confirmation process for a new federal judge in the Baton Rouge-based Middle District court.

Why? Attorney Shelly D. Dick was nominated to the bench on the recommendation of U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Democrat.

With Republicans hoping to win the White House next fall, Vitter hopes that he’ll be able to fill the vacancy of the late Judge Ralph Tyson with a deserving Republican next year.

It’s blatant politics of exactly the kind that Vitter denounced unsparingly in 2007. Then, Landrieu — on the basis of vague objections — delayed the approval of a qualified GOP nominee for the Middle District. However, that was the only time that Landrieu used senatorial privilege to block a Louisiana nominee in the eight years of the administration of President George W. Bush.

To add to the hypocrisy of Vitter’s latest, he absurdly suggests that he is pure of heart when it comes to nominees by President Barack Obama.

“By any measure, I’ve bent over backwards to cooperate regarding President Obama’s Louisiana nominees, which has resulted in all 10 before this being confirmed in record time,” Vitter stated. “Now that it’s a few months before a presidential election, however, I’m going to let the people speak before supporting any others.”

This should provoke guffaws from anyone familiar with Vitter’s obstructionism, as blatantly partisan and removed from “cooperation” as it is possible to be.

Vitter stalled two appointments to the Federal Reserve Board before they were ultimately pushed through. He’s showered administration nominees with objections, including a case in which the Senate Ethics Committee rebuked him for his abuse of the privileges.

In 2010, Vitter held up two Louisiana nominations — one for then-nominated federal Judge Brian Jackson of Baton Rouge and a U.S. marshal candidate in New Orleans — in an effort to ensure that the U.S. attorney he supports in the Eastern District, Jim Letten, remained. Vitter relented once Letten was reappointed with support from Landrieu.

In that case, Vitter may have outmaneuvered himself. It is quite likely that Letten, a high-profile prosecutor of politicians, would have been reappointed anyway.

All this underscores the outdated nature of the Senate’s outdated rules and privileges.

At one time, senators were expected to obey unwritten rules of courtesy, among them a willingness to confirm qualified nominees of whatever party.

We now live in an era of David Vitters — politicians who believe themselves to be in permanent warfare against the other party, no holds barred, for which the public interest is irrelevant.

The result is a political stall on an attorney who deserves a Senate hearing and then an up-or-down vote on her nomination.


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (21)


1) Comment by Scrooge - 02/07/2012

The sheer susceptibility of people to propaganda, especially that propaganda designed to elicit emotional reflexive reactions, is why money above all else determines the viability of politicians and political ideologies. Reality and truth are irrelevant. It seems that the need to blame others for one's misfortunes is a universal human need and the exploitation of that need is what drives the poisonous discourse.

2) Comment by gravityassist - 02/07/2012

@KPMorgan//Very well said! That should shut them up...but I'm not holding my breath...lol.// It is SO painful watching people fall for the bald-faced lies of the very people sponsoring and exploiting ignorance to enrich themselves by lying and keeping good folks voting against their own best interests year after year.//The ACA is one small step in the right direction -- to the single payer health financing system (Medicare for All) -- a right to affordable health-care that all Americans deserve to have (lower cost/better outcomes), but we're not there yet.//The fight to get the profit motive out of heath care will continue to rage, but - like Medicare - the US WILL come to her "exceptional" senses in the end. :))

3) Comment by KPMorgan - 30/06/2012

Most people who are anywhere close to retirement age now - and certainly, the vast majority who have retired in the last decade or so - will take far more out of Social Security and Medicare than they and their employer(s) put in plus all the interest earned on those contributions over the years. To say you're "entitled" to them just underscores the welfare strain running through both programs. Which is fine - they are social welfare programs, of which we should be proud. Of which I *am* proud. We perpetuate a myth in this country that everyone who has a job works hard for every dime he gets and the government is nothing but a parasite that sucks money out of their paychecks, when the truth is, every part of everyone's lives is enhanced by government. It's government that builds the roads that you drive to work on. It's government that provides the fire department that puts out the fire if your building catches fire - or worse, your neighbor's building, sparing yours by controlling the flames. It's government that provides the police who fight crime and respond to accidents. It's government that makes sure your bank doesn't short-change your account on deposits and makes sure your deposits are insured in case the bank fails. It's government that makes sure the water coming to your house is clean and drinkable and that the air in your city is breathable. Governments make the courts function so that when your private business contracts are violated, you have recourse besides sending Bruno out to kneecap your clients. If ANY of these things depended on the sainted "market", plenty of people would decide that it wasn't worth the risk to pay for - and then when it all blew up, everyone else around them would pay the price. Government makes civilization possible. Every other major civilized country in the world manages to provide health care for its citizens, with generally better health outcomes, at far lower costs per capita than the U.S. What that tells us is that if we put the same dollars we now spend on health care (in all forms) into a single-payer system, everyone in the country could have outstanding coverage and we'd be spending no more than we are now. There's something wrong with the way we're doing it.

4) Comment by Whatnow - 29/06/2012

Thank you nimby?, I was going to answer DMJ with the same retort. DMJ, You act like Medicare and Social Security was something that I never contributed to. That does not make me dependent on the government. That made those programs something that I am entitled to. That means that I am a hard working, contributing member of society. Don't even dare to try to compare me with the people that nimby? describes. Those people demand to be taken care of without doing a thing for this country, society or themselves. And I'm sure you will be singing a different tune when your taxes go up because of Obamacare never ending costs. (And they keep finding more) And Gerald said "Soviet Union or Nazi Germany" not "Soviet Union and Nazi Germany".

5) Comment by nimby? - 29/06/2012

if further embellishment of the entitlement culture continues it will . S S is deducted as an investment into ones' future , a wise investment pays dividends . statistics also suggest the average person working a lifetime , 25/30 years will not collect what they have paid in . a little different from someone choosing not to educate themself , not seek employment because they are not qualified , not support themselves or their own , settle for a life of dependency on the fruits of someone elses labors ....

6) Comment by DMJ - 28/06/2012

Whatnow, I suspect you'll be singing a different tune when you're collecting Medicare and Social Security. Gerald, "every facet of the lives of it's citizens"? Do you know what "every" means? Not trying to be rude, but it doesn't seem like you do. True, the government does make laws which we, as citizens, must obey, but last I checked....the government doesn't control any facet of my life. Maybe someone's been playing a really elaborate prank on you. Is someone who says they're from "the government" telling you how to dress, what to eat, where to work, what to watch on TV, how to spend your free time, etc? Yeah....me neither. Also, do you know that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were polar opposites, right? Otherwise, they would have been on the same side in WWII and not mortal enemies. A real Republican poutfest today. Cheer up, fellas. I just looked outside and the sky didn't fall.

7) Comment by rgeraldwallace@cox.net - 28/06/2012

Hey, DMJ; what does "allowing government to function" have to do with allowing the mandating of how "workers" spend their money and controlling every facet of the lives of it's citizens? It sounds more like fond memories of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany; they controlled every facet of their citizen's lives also while the big shot party elite lived it up bigtime.

8) Comment by Whatnow - 28/06/2012

@DMJ, there is not one thing that the Dems have done IMO that is useful to this country as a whole. We now have a new mandated health care act that will not cost a penny. Right? Sneaky lies abound in this administration.

9) Comment by 8point6 - 28/06/2012

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020448830457442 5294029138738.html ""That may be," Mr. Stephanopoulos responded, "but it's still a tax increase." (In fact, uncompensated care accounts for about only 2.2% of national health spending today, but that's another subject.) Mr. Obama: "No. That's not true, George. The—for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. Geaux hussein!!

10) Comment by DMJ - 28/06/2012

Because that's what government is all about....right, Whatnow? Scoring points? I know it's hard for Republicans to believe, since they don't want government to do anything useful, but some people think improving the country by allowing its government to function is more important than "points." Ugh...

11) Comment by Whatnow - 28/06/2012

What a biased hypocritical "Our Views". So it's okay when Mary does it, but not when Vitter does? "The Advocate" your hate is spewing again. It's all a game of points and Vitter just has more. Don't like it? That's because he's winning in points. Good for you Senator Vitter. Sometimes you have to play hard to win.

12) Comment by spqr - 28/06/2012

I just wish I could stop this idiot Vitter from sending unwanted political messages to my email. He always calls me his "friend". Darling. I am charmed. Hope he does not run for governor. He is typical Jindal politics.

13) Comment by DMJ - 28/06/2012

I find it depressingly and hilariously ironic that conservatives still whine about "judicial activism" or "making laws from the bench" in the era of Antonin Scalia. But then again...if people could recognize their own hypocrisy, they wouldn't be hypocrites in the first place, right? Ugh...

14) Comment by tradewinns - 28/06/2012

what we do not need is another liberal, let's make laws hudge on any bench. sen. vitter did the correct thing and i hope he stand firm till after the election. if obama wins reelection, one judgeship won't matter, the country is doomed anyway.

15) Comment by DMJ - 28/06/2012

David Vitter- professional liar and scoundrel. I still can't believe we voted this human disgrace back in office over Charlie Melancon. Amazing...

16) Comment by rgeraldwallace@cox.net - 28/06/2012

"an era of David Vitters"? My goodness, your slip is showing. "Our Views" has never been overly impartial but your antagonism for Senator Vitter seems to be boundless. Even when Senator Landrieu blocked contracts to Louisiana's largest employer because the union told her to do it, I don't remember any such scathing rebukes.

17) Comment by TheTardis - 28/06/2012

Diaper Dave a hypocrite? I'm shocked!

18) Comment by 8point6 - 28/06/2012

"our views": Vitter bad. mary good. That is this article in a nutshell. However, I do give "our views" an "a" for effort.

19) Comment by bourbon-soda - 28/06/2012

Ted Kennedy? Should be past tense.

20) Comment by Elderly Man - 28/06/2012

That nasty, perverted man holds us in contempt.

21) Comment by bourbon-soda - 27/06/2012

This editorial first laments "the outdated nature of the Senate’s outdated rules and privileges" and then urges adherence to equally outdated (since the Bork nomination) "willingness to confirm qualified nominees of whatever party." Is "outdated" bad, or just the "outdated" you don't like?