May 24, 2005

Senate Compromise on Judicial Filibusters Reached (a slightly different take)

The buzz in the blogospere is frantic over the compromise reached by the 14 Senators concerning the 5 Judicial nominees offered up by George Bush. Here is my take, the Republicans won this round. Here's why:

1) We have an up or down vote guaranteed on the 3 most contentious nominees Brown, Owen and Pryor.

2) We have given up nothing. The Dims promised not to filibuster unless under extraordinary circumstances. The other two nominess can be brought to the floor and if filibustered the Dims can be made out to be liars because the 3 most arguably extreme judges have already been allowed through.

3) The nuclear option can still be be used at any time.

4) The Dims got absolutely nothing except it allowed them a way out of this morass without totally losing face.

5) It will be virtually impossible for the Dims to try and filibuster one of these nominees if they are ever in line for the Supreme Court because they have already capitulated on them.

I was never sure that Frist had the votes to go nuclear, if he did he will have them a few weeks down the road should they be needed, if he didn't he averted a potentially devastating embarrassment. The Liberals blinked and we are better off now then we were a week ago.


Posted by Traderrob

Update: Frist on the Senate Floor:

I am not a party of the MOU signed last night by 14 of our colleagues, I have had the opportunity to further review in more detail and the MOU makes modest progress in that three individuals will get up or down votes.

But to me it does stop far short of guaranteeing judicial nominees of the up or down votes for other nominees and other nominees in the future. I say that with civility and trust and with the MOU being a starting point and the spirit in which it was generated, I think we can successfully bring these judicial nominees to a vote. It will be spun by the left and right in various ways but I look at that MOU which I didn't sign off on because it stops far short of what we want, but it does show a way to go forward with nominees with filibuster.
Frist: Other qualified nominees deserve the same up or down vote. The agreement stops far short of the principal that I have brought to the floor.

The agreement if followed in good faith will make filibusters in the future, including Supremem Court nominees, almost impossible. The words in the agreement about extraordinary circumstances, obviously I'm concerned about that because if extraordinary circumstances are described about people like Miguel Estrada, then this agreement will mean very little.

Frist continues, the constitutional option remains on the table. It remains an option and I won't hesitate to use it if necessary as a last resort. It is the only response if there is a change in response like the last Congress. My goal is restoring the principal of fairness for 214 years until the last Congress for up or down votes.

If the other side of the aisle continues the obstructionism and filibustering, the constitutional option will come out once again and I'll set a date to use it.

It's not a threat. It ought to be used to enforce appropriate behavior. All it does it bring it to the floor.
Hmmmm, interesting

Posted by: Traderrob at 06:52 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 594 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I disagree. I think the Senate Republicans demonstrated once again what they do best. They cave. As for my Ohio Senators, DeWine and Voinovich, they've lost my support. DeWine for the filibuster cave. Voinovich for his Bolton outburst. It all reflects negatively on other male Ohio Republicans who do have testosterone in their bloodstream.

Posted by: Mike at May 24, 2005 07:39 AM (ywZa8)

2 1) Yes, we will get a vote on those three; but the Republican position was to get a vote on ALL the nominees that had majority support. This deal doesn't account for that. 2) I beg to differ. We've given up the Constitutional Option as I will outline below. 3) As part of the agreement the maverick RINO Coalition pledged not tto support the Constitutional Option in the 109th Congress. Do you honestly think these guys are going to back down off of that even if the Democrats engage in a filibuster that is not under "extreme circumstances"? I don't have that kind of faith in these guys... 4) They get a win in blocking ANY of the President's nominees who had majority support. 5) You don't know the power of the Dark Side... And I will agree with Mike (above) to some degree... I, too, am from Ohio and have lost a LOT of faith in my state Republicans. The problem is that the Ohio Democrats won't put up a conservative Democrat and the Ohio Republicans are too busy "building a big tent." We will continue to see the mavericks running and winning in Ohio until one or the other changes. Ohio GOP isn't interested in furthering a conservative agenda...they don't even have a platform for the state party...

Posted by: Matt from WMD at May 24, 2005 07:47 AM (vQcWL)

3 If the Dims filibuster, the deal is busted and the nuclear option is viable and yes I do believe it will be used. We will get a vote on all 5 one way or another.

Posted by: traderrob at May 24, 2005 07:54 AM (3al54)

4 "If the Dims filibuster, the deal is busted and the nuclear option is viable"-Traderrob Translation, a filibuster is still possible as long as it is never used. Doesn't make much sense. The Democrats are idiots for excepting this deal and the Republicans are duplicitous for putting it forward.

Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 09:18 AM (/+dAV)

5 Greg, for once we agree.

Posted by: traderrob at May 24, 2005 09:20 AM (3al54)

6 greg, congatulations, you got it right this time.

Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 09:51 AM (8e/V4)

7 The Dems can filibuster for "extraordinary circumstances." They also have the right to define for themselves what these circumstances. Thus, in the mind of the liberal press, where this will be played out, they will always have their circumstances and since the Repubs have agreed not to use the "nuclear" option, then we're screwed if we do, no matter what the reason. We gave away three perfectly good judicial nominees for some good press. And then didn't even get that.

Posted by: Drew at May 24, 2005 12:12 PM (Ml8z/)

8 I'm going to volunteer for whoever is the Libertarian Congressional candidates next year, because the GOP has no balls anymore.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 24, 2005 12:29 PM (0yYS2)

9 A monumental waste of time serving only to help the left ala Perot.

Posted by: traderrob at May 24, 2005 12:53 PM (3al54)

10 Say what if we went and changed to rules not to allow filibuster. then 20 years from now find ourselves in the minority and wish we had it back?? It's a good deal.

Posted by: Howie at May 24, 2005 01:29 PM (D3+20)

11 I disagree with the post, but there is one bright side to all this: In the long run, McCain and the rest of the Seven Dwarves will end up out of power. When more judges are up and the democRats go ahead and filibuster and the CONSTITUTIONAL option is employed, the conservatives of the Senate will move forward, the moderates will be left behind, and progress will happen. But it will be take longer for progress than it should have taken, and we risk catastrophic setbacks if the GOP doesn't defeat Shrillary in 2008.

Posted by: Gullyborg at May 24, 2005 01:54 PM (mWyYk)

12 Yep that's it. Got power use it. Never mind the wisdom or lack thereof in using it. Suppose you piss off the electorate for whatever reason. Maybe just the perception that the GOP is out of line a little bit. New president with coat tails. Majority gone can't change the rule back now that you need it. Next example. Well if we can change the rules on appointee's advice and consent why not on say "insert your pet project here" it's just as important as judges. Next example: Well if you can toss out filibuster on "insert your pet project here" Then why not X and Y and Z and this and that and the other. Yep it's a good deal. That is why they call it the nuclear card. After you put it down you have to live in the aftermath. You screw yourself just to win one battle. They have already screwed themselved by even considering it. It stinks of arrogance. Plus three judges got shoved down the minority's throat. Stop whining. It's a win win sorta. Progress is not mowing over the minority every chance you get, because later at voting time you are going to pay. At least McCain had the guts to behave like a man not a sheep and stand up for his own opinion. I'll let Mr. McCain & Arizona decide if they want a senator or a sheepboy who will vote the party line no matter what.

Posted by: Howie at May 24, 2005 02:40 PM (D3+20)

13 The filibuster is a bad idea now and always has been a bad idea. The way the senate is supposed to get things done is by voting on them. If you have more votes, you win. Letting one person tie up the entire governemnt because he's long-winded is never good. If we'd have ended the filibuster, maybe we could get down to the business of actually running the country instead of posing for the cameras, which is what McCain, et al is so obviously doing. What kind of courage did it really take to bow down to the democrats the way he did?

Posted by: Drew at May 24, 2005 05:49 PM (zEdFo)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
27kb generated in CPU 1.5341, elapsed 1.5397 seconds.
119 queries taking 1.3957 seconds, 262 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.