NY Times: "Unlike Previous Fights over Judicial Nominees"

 NBC News: "Folks, We've moved beyond the ...Judicial Battles during the Bush Years"

 NJ's Fournier: "Their argument is ludicrous." ... "This Is Pure Politics Of Obstruction."

 REPUBLICAN BLANKET FILIBUSTER OF OBAMA NOMINEES EXCEEDS ALL PREVIOUS FIGHTS:

Former Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin: "I Am Very Much Concerned That The Norms Have Been Eroded."

QUESTION: Are we seeing things now in terms of obstruction, the routinization of the filibuster, the refusal to confirm any, give an up or down vote to anyone who is nominated regardless of credentials. Have we seen a deterioration in those norms?

FRUMIN: I believe we have.  I spent 35 years defending the prerogatives of the minority and the unique nature of the Senate and how that is done through its rules and precedents. I am very much concerned that the norms have been eroded. [MSNBC All in with Chris Hayes, 11/19/13]

Bloomberg's Albert R Hunt: "These Are Out Of The Ordinary Tactics."

"These are out of the ordinary tactics. Rarely is a sitting member of Congress, from either party, blocked from an appointment and substantive complaints haven't been raised against the judicial nominations." [Bloomberg, 11/20/13]

New York Times: "Unlike Previous Fights over Judicial Nominees... Republicans Have Raised Few Objections To The Three Candidates' Qualifications Or Legal Positions."

Unlike previous fights over judicial nominees, the dispute is not as much about the judges' individual political leanings as it is about the overall ideological makeup of the court. Republicans have raised few objections to the three candidates' qualifications or legal positions. Rather, Republicans are seeking to prevent Mr. Obama from filling any of the three existing vacancies on the 11-seat court, fearing that he will alter its conservative tilt. [NY Times, 11/18/13]

NBC News: "Senate Republicans Are Filibustering Obama's Judicial Picks Not Based On Concerns About Ideology Or Qualifications -- But Rather Obama's Ability To Make ANY Pick To Fill The D.C. Circuit"

Extraordinary: Folks, we've moved beyond the Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers Brown judicial battles during the Bush years, when Senate Democrats filibustered those nominations due to concerns about ideology and qualifications. Now Senate Republicans are filibustering Obama's judicial picks not based on concerns about ideology or qualifications -- but rather Obama's ability to make ANY pick to fill the D.C. Circuit. [NBC News, 11/19/13]

National Journal Editorial Director Ron Fournier: "Their Argument Is Ludicrous" "This Is Pure Politics Of Obstruction."

A small but recent example of Republican obstinacy came Monday when Senate Republicans blocked Obama's third consecutive nominee to the country's most important appeals court. Their argument is ludicrous: The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit does not have a caseload to merit filling the vacancies, Republicans claim. They failed to shrink the court by three seats, so they are blocking the president's nominees. This is not about caseloads. Republicans had no trouble with the size of the court under President Bush. The data contradicts the case for fewer seats. And all three of Obama's nominees are qualified for the job. This is pure politics of obstruction. [National Journal, 11/19/13]

AEI Congressional Scholar Norm Ornstein: "We've Never Seen That Before. ... I Just Think It's Ridiculous."

"In previous cases it was the minority party filibustering nominees they judged were not mainstream," Ornstein said. "There's no case even being made that these nominees aren't qualified. We've never seen that before. ... I just think it's ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous." [TPM, 11/12/13]

NOT LONG AGO, REPUBLICANS CALLED FOR UP-OR-DOWN VOTES ON ALL NOMINEES:

Minority Leader McConnell (R-KY):  "Because of the unprecedented obstruction of our Democratic colleagues, the Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up -or -down vote." [Floor Remarks, 5/19/05]

 Minority Leader McConnell (R-KY):  "Let me repeat, all we are looking for is an up -or -down vote." [Floor Remarks, 5/19/05]

Minority Whip Cornyn (R-TX): "I hope that by the end of this session of Congress, my colleagues will give the President's qualified nominees what they, and all current and future nominees deserve: the opportunity to have a fair up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate on their nomination. For the sake of the Senate, the nation, and our independent judiciary, I hope that these partisans will not launch more filibusters, but from what I've heard today, I won't hold my breath." [Floor Remarks, 3/26/04]

Minority Whip Cornyn (R-TX): "The bottom line has to be that the president has the right to get a vote, an up-or-down vote, on his nominees." [Baltimore Sun, 11/10/04]

Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Grassley (R-IA): "Let's debate the nominees and give our advice and consent. It is a simple 'yea' or 'nay,' when called to the altar to vote. Filibustering a nominee into oblivion is misguided warfare and the wrong way for a minority party to leverage influence in the Senate. Threatening to grind legislative activity to a standstill if they do not get their way is like being a bully on the school yard playground. Let's do our jobs. Nothing is nuclear about asking the full Senate to take an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees. It is the way the Senate has operated for 214 years." [Floor Remarks, 5/23/05]

Sen. Alexander (R-TN): "I said a few months after I arrived here that I would not participate in a filibuster of any President's nominee . I might vote against them for one reason or another, but I wouldn't participate in a filibuster. Each one of them deserves an up -or -down vote." [Floor Remarks, 1/26/06]

Sen. Boozman (R-AR): "Boozman said his constituents will want to see that the president's pick for a replacement gets an up-or-down vote in the Senate - and not a filibuster. "The American people are tired of obstructionism," he said." [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 7/2/05]

Sen. Burr (R-NC): "But denying these patriotic Americans, of both parties, who seek to serve this country an up-or-down vote is simply not fair, and it certainly was not the intention of our Founding Fathers when they designed and created this very institution." [Floor Remarks, 4/20/05]

Sen. Chambliss and Sen. Isakson (R-GA): "The question is simple and our responsibility clear. Every judge nominated by this president or any president deserves an up-or-down vote. It's the responsibility of the Senate. The Constitution requires it." [Atlanta Journal Constitution, 5/24/05]

Sen. Coburn (R-OK): "Straight up and down vote. And then, you know -- one of my Democratic friends, a congressman, said this. He said, if you don't like his nominees, win the presidency. You know? Vote them down or vote them in and then, if you vote them down, let's have another one." [CNN, 7/11/05]

Sen. Crapo (R-ID): "However, we continue to stress that the Constitution requires the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees. We will continue to work to ensure that is the case." [Press Release, 5/25/05]

Sen. Hatch (R-UT):  "The first principle is every judicial nomination reaching the Senate deserves an up -or -down vote ." [Floor Remarks, 4/27/05]

Sen. Inhofe (R-OK): "That is all we want, an up -or -down vote ." [Floor Remarks, 5/12/05]

Sen. Roberts (R-KS): "Let us restore the 214-year-old precedent of an up-or-down majority vote and see if we cannot reach accord and ride to a higher--a higher--common ground." [Floor Remarks, 5/23/05]

Sen. Sessions (R-AL): "But they blocked an up-or-down vote by carrying out the filibuster rule, and I think that's a very, very grim thing.  It should not occur." [The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, 9/4/03]

Sen. Thune (R-SD): "The American people see this as an issue of fundamental fairness. They understand that this body's constitutional obligation, responsibility, and duty is to provide advice and consent, and that means an up -or -down vote in the Senate." [Floor Remarks, 4/21/05]

Sen. Vitter (R-LA):  "We need to bring some fundamental fairness to this process. Sure, we need to have an important debate. Sure, we need to vet all the information. We can have differences of opinion. But then at the end of the day, we need to have resolution, we need to have an up-or-down vote. It is time to do that with all of these judicial nominees." [Floor Remarks, 5/19/05]

President Bush:  "Every judicial nominee deserves a fair hearing and an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor." [Remarks at a Bush-Cheney '04 Fund-Raiser, 1/15/04]

Vice President Cheney: "Every nominee deserves a prompt up-or-down vote on the Senate floor." [Remarks by the Vice President at a Rally for Bush-Cheney '04, 5/10/04]