search
top

Holder Passes: 75-21

Eric Holder’s nomination has been confirmed by the senate by a vote of 75 to 21.  The senators to vote against him are:

Barrasso (R-WY)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johanns (R-NE)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

This was not enough to sustain a filibuster, unfortunately, but this is better than I thought the Republicans would do. No Democrat voted against the nomination. The Republicans to vote “yea” were:

Alexander (R-TN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Sessions (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Voinovich (R-OH)

This is not a positive development, but I will stand by my assertion that the time to stop this was in November.  It is very difficult to derail a cabinet nomination under the best of circumstances, which this wasn’t.

14 Responses to “Holder Passes: 75-21”

  1. Mike123 says:

    Look on the bright side. Holder may be the only cabinet officer who actually pays his taxes.

  2. Sebastian says:

    Thanks Mike, that was pretty funny. I needed that after today :)

  3. RAH says:

    The Republican position has been for decades that a President get the nominees he wants even if they disagree with the positions the nominess has taken. This is opposite of the Democrats that use litmus test to decide on nominess.

    So Holder getting this many republicans voting against him is more significant. Sebastioan I agree it is easier to derail the nomination than fight against a comnfirmed nominee.

    I suggest people check on how the GOP allowed Clinton’s nominees to go through. And this is Obama, the one that no one wants to appear racist by opposing too strongly.

  4. Sebastian says:

    The Republican position has been for decades that a President get the nominees he wants even if they disagree with the positions the nominess has taken. This is opposite of the Democrats that use litmus test to decide on nominess.

    I agree this is a problem. The Democrats are shameless about using government to advance their agenda, and they are good at it. The Republicans are pikers in comparison. I hope they get over this before Obama gets a Supreme Court pick.

    So Holder getting this many republicans voting against him is more significant.

    It’s good, in the sense that they were more together than I thought they’d be, but they need to be more together than this when it comes to the Supreme Court. That’s where the real fight is if we’re talking confirmations. Holder is a real problem, but he’s small potatoes compared to that. We have a good chance to be rid of Holder in four years. At worst, eight years. We may have to put up with Obama’s court appointments for a generation.

  5. Thane EIchenauer says:

    If enough elected Republicans had a will, they would have found a way. The fact is that the Republicans who voted yes, either liked Mr. Holder as a nominee or didn’t like him but voted yes to curry favor. Either reason isn’t an indication of a pro-self-defense US Senator.

  6. Linoge says:

    *sigh* Both of my senators voted for him, and this after I emailed and snailmailed them. Of course, given that my local legislature representatives have not responded to either emails or snailmails, it should come as no surprise to me that my national representatives surely do not give a damn.

    The next four years just look more and more fun every day.

  7. Myles says:

    McCain and Kyl are an embarrassment to Arizona.

  8. Boyd says:

    As an amusing side note, the 6 o’clock news on the DC NBC station last night reported the vote as 75 – 29.

    *blink*

    I suppose that must be due to the fact that we now have 57 states.

  9. persiflage says:

    My Senators did not follow my clear instructions with respect to the Holder nomination. So I wrote to them again today in opposition. I told them I was I disappointed in their vote and will remember it. I reiterated my reasons that Holder is unsuitable for the office, and that, as my representative, I hold them responsible. I was perfectly polite, but firm in my opposition. The first boneheaded move Holder makes, I will be writing my Senators again in opposition, and linking their vote and responsibility for it! I intend to remain polite, but let them know that their actions, and consequences thereof, are being watched.

  10. Anon Reader Dude says:

    Here are the seven states from which both Senators opposed Holder:

    Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, Wyoming.

    I’m disappointed in Sen. Sessions (Alabama).

  11. Skullz says:

    [This is not a positive development, but I will stand by my assertion that the time to stop this was in November.]

    Uh huh. You do realize that your November guy voted “yea”, right?

  12. Sebastian says:

    He’s on the list isn’t it? Did you want me to highlight and bold it? But if McCain were in the White House, he wasn’t going to be selecting Eric Holder to be Attorney General. He certainly wouldn’t be in the Senate to vote on confirmations.

    If McCain had won, this would be a totally different card game. The worst we’d have to worry about is the Dems floating a bill regulating private sales in some manner. Right now we have no idea what’s coming, but none of the possibilities look good.

  13. Skullz says:

    Sebastian. I know that inflection is impossible in text, but it seems to me that I might have inflamed you a bit. I know you’ve had some issues “here” as of late, but as far as I know, we’ve had some diametrically opposed views and disagreements, but civil all the same.

    My point on McCain is the same as it was during the election – he’s of the same animal, just a different – and no better – stripe. For someone that was running for president, on “Country First”, to support the nomination of someone like Holder just proves he was an empty suit. Holder should have been opposed for a number of reasons – his stance on gun rights may have been the least of those reasons.

    [Right now we have no idea what’s coming, but none of the possibilities look good.]

    No, if McCain were in the WH, Holder would not have been nominated or confirmed – but McCain still should have stood up for what was right – and a “yea” ain’t it.

    Finally – our Senator voted “yea” too. I know that a number of folks from pafoa called, emailed, etc – including me. I find it hard to believe that more people contacted Specter supporting Holder. In any case, we’ll keep fighting the good fight until all options are exhausted – after that, we’ll fight the right fight.

    III

  14. Sebastian says:

    I am not inflamed, but I was pointing out I did list McCain’s name in the Republican Senators who voted yes. You have been civil, I will give you that.

    I don’t disagree with you that Holder should have had enough skeletons in his closet to get rejected. Clinton list two of his AGs because they didn’t pay their taxes on their nannies. Now we’re putting tax cheats into cabinet positions, no problem. We have someone who was involved in making sure nothing was done about Waco as AG. I don’t think we disagree on the problem, just on the solution.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. GunPundit » Blog Archive » Holder confirmed by Senate - [...] Sebastian: This is not a positive development, but I will stand by my assertion that the time to stop…
top