Sen. Sessions Walking Back Opposition To SCOTUS Filibuster: "I'm Not Gonna Rule It Out"

In 2005, Democratic efforts to block President Bush's judicial nominees were condemned by a chorus of Republicans as a "train wreck," "unprecedented obstruction," and a "mockery of our system." Several GOP Senators even said filibustering judicial nominees was unconstitutional.  Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), now the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, was among the critics, arguing that "majority vote for judges" has been the rule "since the founding of the Republic."

Speaking on the Senate floor, Sessions said: "Since the founding of the Republic, we have understood that there was a two-thirds supermajority for ratification and advice and consent on treaties and a majority vote for judges. That is what we have done. That is what we have always done. But there was a conscious decision on behalf of the leadership, unfortunately, of the Democratic Party in the last Congress to systematically filibuster some of the best nominees ever submitted to the Senate. It has been very painful."

Four years later, with President Obama's first Supreme Court nomination looming, some Republican Senators are conspicuously shifting positions. Yesterday, in an appearance on C-SPAN's Newsmakers, Sessions walked back his previous opposition to blocking bench appointments, saying, "I'm not gonna rule it out." 

Sen. Sessions: "I've not favored a filibuster. I opposed two nominees in the Clinton years aggressively. Trent Lott said, 'It's time to bring it up for a vote.' I voted for cloture, to give them a final vote, because I did not favor the filibuster technique and I'm very uneasy about that. But, you remember the Gang of 14, and the Democrats were filibustering Bush nominees, and they said, 'In extraordinary circumstances, but only in those circumstances, should you justify a filibuster.' Maybe that's the new standard. It's not in concrete, but that may be the standard that would be used in the future."

Question: "So you won't rule it out?"

Sen. Sessions: "I'm not gonna rule it out."

Watch it:

Sessions then pointed to President Obama's participation in the filibuster bid against Justice Alito as evidence of "the new standard." "We could be moving to a circumstance in which there's not as much deference," he said. "...this automatic, powerful deference to the President's nominee...that used to be given in the past."

However, President Obama never claimed -- as Sessions and other Republicans did -- that filibustering judicial nominees was unconstitutional. Sessions wrote last week that one of the key criteria for Obama's selection should be "a commitment to the design of our Constitution." It's remarkable, though, how Sessions' own opinion of "the design of our constitution" changes when it's politically convenient.