Democrats. Lose more seats becausereal Americans are tired of obstructionist minorities.
Moderate Republicans. The Sellout 7 look for jobs with Moveon.org as they will all lose their primaries.
Conservative Republicans. Win. They distance themselves from the sellouts, mover further to the right, and pick up 10 more seats in the Senate.
Just for the shits and giggles of it, 100M - what would you do if my predictions came true?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
A good take on how the deal is a win for professed conservatives:
I like the Russell Kirk homage, and this:
“A GOP-established legislative and institutional precedent for abolishing the filibuster as to judicial nominations would make it all that much easier for the Democrats to do the same as to nominations or legislation. (Imagine President Hillary with a 50-50 Senate split and, say, Mark Warner as VP. What will prevent HillaryCare II if we don’t have the filibuster then? Our slim majority in the House?)”
[/quote]
Generally I like the good Professor, but I think he’s looking more at politics than at anything else, and he’s worried about the slippery slope – he wants the Senate to keep the filibuster w/r/t legislation, but thinks it would be more likely to be removed in that context if it were removed in the appointee context.
A take from Northwestern Law School prof Jim Lindgren:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_05_22-2005_05_28.shtml#1116976917
Can we trust the Senators to live up to THE DEAL?–
I share the common ambivalence to the new deal on filibusters.
Before the filibuster deal, I thought that some of the pro-Bush defenders of the filibuster were being unrealistic. The assumption seemed to be that, if Bush nominated a moderate or just an ordinary conservative for the Supreme Court, then there wouldn?t be a filibuster, but if he appointed an extremist, then there would be. Further, the thinking went that, if the Democrats in the Senate filibustered anyone but an extremist, they would pay for it with the public.
Since my politics are well to the left of anyone Bush would seriously consider for the Supreme Court, that scenario would be an attractive prospect to me ? if it were true.
But ? before THE DEAL ? I thought that anyone that Bush could appoint would be filibustered, no matter how moderate. He or she could be a decent, reserved, open-minded, unprejudiced, intelligent conservative such as Judge Michael McConnell. Or he could even be a judge who was pro-affirmative action and (in his opinions, at least) pro-abortion such as Alberto Gonzales. Indeed, a high staffer with one of the major public interest groups that the Democrats rely on to evaluate judicial candidates told me to expect an attempt to filibuster Gonzales if he is appointed to the Court, even though she admitted that Gonzales was more liberal than anyone else that Bush could conceivably appoint. In other words, I expected that if Bush appointed someone closer to the political center than Clinton?s nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that nominee would nonetheless be filibustered as an extremist. (By the way, McConnell in particular would seem to be an almost ideal candidate for Chief Justice, with a calm, responsible, principled manner that should smooth over ideological differences on the Court. According to those who know John Roberts, he would be another.)
Further, once the TV ads would start running portraying Bush?s nominee as not only extreme, but also mean and corrupt, it would be the Republicans who would be under fire for supporting him or her, not the Democrats. And, unlike a political campaign, the nominee would be discouraged from making the rounds of talk shows to campaign for the office. (Imagine in the last election if we had only pro-Bush or only pro-Kerry ads! Getting a supermajority of 60% in Congress is difficult if you can?t get even get a majority of the public first.)
Of course, before THE DEAL, a Republican could still support the right to filibuster nominees without believing that Democratic senators would filibuster only an extremist, but I thought the factual basis of some principled pro-filibuster advocates (that a filibuster was not inevitable) was wrong, especially once a public smear campaign was in full force against any nominee that Bush put forward. (Of course, the strongest argument against repealing the 60-vote cloture rule is that the Senate?s rules themselves require a supermajority to change them ? whether that rule must be followed if it obstructs the obligation to ?advise and consent? is a closer question.)
So how does THE DEAL change all this? I don?t know, but it might. I no longer view a filibuster as a near certainty; it depends on the honesty and courage of the Democratic signatories.
If THE DEAL merely postpones a showdown until Bush nominates a new justice for the Supreme Court, then it is a big mistake for Republicans. It all depends on what ?extraordinary circumstances? means. If the threshold is that Bush has nominated someone that People for the American Way and the Alliance for Justice say is an extremist, someone whom we are told is WAY OUT OF THE POLITICAL MAINSTREAM, then we can be virtually certain that the Democrats will have the ?extraordinary circumstances? that they need to filibuster anyone Bush would appoint to the Supreme Court. Yet almost any judge that Bush would propose for the Court would probably be closer to the political center than the typical activist at People for the American Way or the Alliance for Justice.
But if the Democratic senators signing THE DEAL will really agree to cut off a filibuster if Bush nominates someone like most of the names that have been floated so far, then THE DEAL will have accomplished its purpose. [b]The 7 Democrats are saying in effect: ?Trust us. If you won?t abolish the filibuster, we can stand up to the demagoguery coming from our friends and allies on particular nominees for the federal courts.?
If those Democratic senators break their promises and give in to the pressure to filibuster ordinary conservatives, they may not pay a price with their constituents (the smear campaign will give them cover), but commentators, press pundits, bloggers, and fellow senators ? indeed, most of us in the intellectual chattering class ? will know that the solemn word of these men and women can?t be trusted. And the senators themselves will have to look themselves in the mirror every morning. For all of our sakes, let?s hope they value clear consciences.[/b] (Yes, I know that Robert Byrd is a signatory, but I will leave his personal characteristics aside in this post, trying to focus mainly on the other 6 Democrats.)
Based on recent behavior in the Senate, I?m pessimistic, but not entirely devoid of hope.
By the way, the 7 Democratic senators are Robert Byrd, Daniel Inouye, Mary Landrieu, Joseph Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, and Ken Salazar. The 7 Republican senators are Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, Mike DeWine, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Olympia Snowe, and John Warner.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Democrats. Lose more seats becausereal Americans are tired of obstructionist minorities.
Moderate Republicans. The Sellout 7 look for jobs with Moveon.org as they will all lose their primaries.
Conservative Republicans. Win. They distance themselves from the sellouts, mover further to the right, and pick up 10 more seats in the Senate.
Just for the shits and giggles of it, 100M - what would you do if my predictions came true?
[/quote]
Pound head against wall, begin process of accepting country has lost its american way.
Some more good political analysis, courtesy of RedState - I note that none of this matters one lick with respect to the Constitutional analysis of the filibuster vis a vis the Appointments Power:
http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/5/24/234635/468
It has been over a day since “The Deal” was made. After seeing the reactions, explanations, debates, and announcements, there are two major points that need to be made.
1. Winning elections does matter.
Specifically, the “not one more dime” crowd needs to take a step back and think about where we would be without the +4 gain in the Senate and the re-election in 2004. Without the Senate majority of 10, the threat of the Constitutional/Nuclear Option would not have been credible. Rogers-Brown, Owen, Pryor and others yet to come would have been filibustered without repurcussion by obstructionist Democratic partisans controlled by MoveOn.org and other leftist interest groups if we hadn’t defeated Daschle and taken the 4 Southern seats. Thanks to your “dimes” and hours of volunteer action, we have more constructionist and conservative judges than before. We also have “The Deal” which is imperfect but is also better than we would have gotten in the 51-48-1 Senate before the election. So please take a week off, sit back, see how this deal works out, and reconsider your generosity in pursuit of Republican goals. Specifically, consider helping Gov. Hoeven (ND), Lt. Gov Steele (MD), Congressman Kennedy (MN), and any other Senate candidates who could replace Democrats. Our threat of using the Constitutional/Nuclear Option is only as strong as our majority and 1-3 more votes makes it unstoppable. Democrats will not even try a filibuster if they know we have the votes to stop them.
2. “The Deal” turns out to be a pretty good one although that could change.
It perserves the filibuster which is generally a friend of conservatives and does not take us on the first step toward eliminating all filibusters. It sets a standard for when judicial filibusters are acceptable and that standard is high. Most likely Supreme Court nominees will not be filibustered unless they are unqualified (i.e. not judges) or disturbing enough that they wouldn’t even pass an up-or-down vote in the first place.
Why is “The Deal” a pretty good one?
First, the most important aspect of “The Deal” is that it is actually a deal between the 12 Senators who opposed the nuclear/constitutional option and the 2 who supported it. Those 2 can join the 48 other Republicans to end judicial filibusters if they choose to and thus hold the balance of the Senate on this issue. Here is how Sens. DeWine and Graham see that balance:
Senator DeWine, 5/23/05: "Some of you who are looking at the language may wonder what some of the clauses mean. The understanding is – and we don’t think this will happen – but if an individual senator believes in the future that a filibuster is taking place under something that’s not extraordinary circumstances, we of course reserve the right to do what we could have done tomorrow which is to cast a yes vote for the constitutional option.
Senator Graham, 5/24/05: “If one of the seven decides to filibuster – and I believe it’s not an extraordinary circumstance for the country, for the process, then I?ve retained my rights under this agreement to change the rules if I think that’s best for the country. That’s only fair.” (emphasis mine)
Sens. Graham and DeWine both emphasis that the nominee must be someone who creates an “extraordinary circumstance for the country” to justify a filibuster. It would take both Sens. DeWine and Graham to uphold the Constitutional/Nuclear Option which is why winning 1-3 more votes in 2006 would make this whole arrangement unnecessary. So I am confident for now that they will not let Democrats abuse the filibuster.
Second, as Mr. Taranto at Opinion Journal’s Best of the Web points out:
[i]The seven Democratic signatories, that is, have now declared that they will decide how to vote on judicial filibusters rather than take directions from the party. Two of them, Robert Byrd and Daniel Inouye, probably did so largely to preserve “Senate tradition”; but the other five–Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor and Ken Salazar–are all generally moderate, and all from red states except Lieberman. Their inclinations and political interests diverge from those of Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy and other far-left blue-staters.
If left-wing Democrats want to filibuster another nominee, they will have to persuade Minority Leader Harry Reid to risk another nuclear confrontation and persuade at least one of the moderate compromising five, plus Byrd, Inouye and every single uncompromising Dem, that it’s worth it. It could happen, but we’re not betting on it.[/i]
The Democratic moderates from red states have not been noticed much in this deal. As Taranto points out, their interests are not the same as the uber-liberals like Boxer and Kennedy. They must also now make the case that a candidate creates an “extraordinary circumstance” to justify putting “The Deal” in jeopardy. In reality, this means that there is only a tiny chance that they will actually invoke a filibuster. Reassuringly, the Democratic side of this deal rests not on Sen. Reid’s views but on the views and interests of Sens. Nelson, Landrieu, Pryor, Salazar, and Lieberman. They might cobble together the other 38 Democrats with 3 from this group to oppose a Supreme Court nominee, but they would risk upsetting Graham and DeWine to do so.
The bottom line: For a filibuster to happen, 3 of the “moderate” Democrats must choose on their own that a nominee creates an “extraordinary circumstance.” Then Sens. Graham and DeWine must agree with those Democrats on their assessment. To be honest, if Sens. DeWine, Graham and 3 of the Democratic moderates agree on a candidate, then they probably wouldn’t get voted up by the whole Senate. Thus, the filibuster is dead for this Congress but perserved for the future.
Final note: This means that keeping and growing the Senate majority is of the utmost importance. In 2006, the playing field is tilted in our direction and we should take advantage of that. Here is the most recent update on the 2006 matchups: http://election2006.redstate.org/story/2005/4/30/202938/307
It looks like them Dems are filibustering without having to call it such wrt the Bolton nomination to the U.N.
And it looks like the Republicans are going to let them get away with it.
Sickening.
What goes around will in the end come back around.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
It looks like them Dems are filibustering without having to call it such wrt the Bolton nomination to the U.N.
And it looks like the Republicans are going to let them get away with it.
Sickening.[/quote]
Don’t forget the flip-flop by Reid. He at first agreed to vote yes to close, then backed off after the 'non-filibuster- stopped the 6:00 vote call.
Who is leading this party? This can’t be the best they got!
Anyone else like to sit down with Frist and say, “You aren’t going to be President?”
“Forget it.”
Now do what needs doing.
JeffR
They need 60 votes to advance out of committee to a full vote. They don’t have 60 votes. It’s not a fillibuster and even you guys can’t call it one.
If and when the WH provides the documents that were requested months ago, it can proceed to a full vote.
[quote]mark57 wrote:
They need 60 votes to advance out of committee to a full vote. They don’t have 60 votes. It’s not a fillibuster and even you guys can’t call it one.
If and when the WH provides the documents that were requested months ago, it can proceed to a full vote.
[/quote]
You can color it any way you want. The ‘moderates’ are getting press, the dems are stalling, and they have achieved a filibuster without calling it such.
The documents are totally irrelevant - it is another stall tactic by people who have no business looking at classified documents wanting more fodder with which to impune the character of yet another Bush nominee.
As it stands, there are 58 votes to confirm - more than enough. This is more cheap partisan partisan politics by the last gasp left.
This is interesting background on how the compromise came about:
Judicial Nominees Compromise Was Hard-Won
By DAVID ESPO
AP Special Correspondent
WASHINGTON (AP) – The signatures of 14 Senate centrists, seven from each party, spilled across the last page of a hard-won compromise on President Bush’s judicial nominees. But whatever elation the negotiators felt, the Senate’s Democratic leader did not share it.
In the privacy of his Capitol office last Monday night, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked for commitments from six Democrats fresh from the talks. Would they pledge to support filibusters against Brett Kavanaugh and William Haynes, two nominees not specifically covered by the pact with Republicans?
Some of the Democrats agreed. At least one, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, declined.
Details of Reid’s attempt to kill the two nominations within minutes of the agreement, as well as other events during this tumultuous time, were obtained by The Associated Press in interviews with senators and aides in both parties. They spoke on condition of anonymity, citing confidentiality pledges.
The conversation in Reid’s office was among the final acts of a drama that played out unpredictably over several weeks. It culminated in a deal that cleared the way for votes on some nominees long blocked by Democrats, left other nominees in limbo and averted a bruising fight over the Senate’s filibuster rules.
“I think the place would have shut down or been severely disrupted had there been that bitter vote,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.
Instead, Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen was confirmed last week to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after a four-year wait. Other nominees advanced.
Yet soon after, partisanship flared anew, this time over the nomination of John R. Bolton to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Still, senators involved in last week’s compromise on judicial nominees expressed hope that the “mutual trust” cited in their accord could withstand even the challenge of a nomination battle over a Supreme Court vacancy.
“If we can work through that, we can work through anything,” said Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark. The first-term Democrat played a prominent role in the talks.
Added Nelson: “It’s not a contract that’s enforceable. It’s a mutual agreement that is self-enforcing.”
The crucial negotiating sessions took place around a coffee table in the memento-filled inner sanctum of Sen. John McCain’s office. A small glass bust of Theodore Roosevelt, one of the Arizona Republican’s heroes, gazed down from the mantle.
Two weeks earlier, McCain had returned from a memorial ceremony for the late Democratic Rep. Morris Udall of Arizona, recalling a seemingly bygone era of trust among lawmakers. At a weekly lunch of GOP senators, he said a deal with Reid on judges was possible and that Republicans should seek it.
Not a single Republican rose to second the thought. In reply, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist - a potential presidential candidate in 2008, like McCain - asked which of Bush’s conservative candidates should be jettisoned as part of a deal.
Frist’s own negotiations with Reid had foundered on that point. The Tennessee Republican insisted on a “simple principle,” he said repeatedly: a yes or no vote for each nominee.
Said Reid: “They want all or nothing, and I can’t do that.”
Among those senators who got involved, Nelson had been at it the longest. A Democrat seeking re-election in a Republican state, he and Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., had explored a compromise this year without success.
Now Senate leaders were at an impasse. A close vote loomed on the showdown. Nelson, McCain and a politically eclectic group of senators took over. Nelson provided the first in a series of drafts that eventually numbered 30 or 40.
Discussions had a free-flowing, almost chaotic nature as senators discussed the meaning of senatorial trust, the definition of “extraordinary” and which nominees would not make the cut.
The involvement of two senior lawmakers, Sens. Robert C. Byrd, D-W. Va., and John Warner, R-Va., lent prestige. Byrd helped bring Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, another veteran lawmaker, into the group.
Ironically, though, progress slowed 10 days ago when Byrd and Warner proposed using the document to encourage Bush to consult more widely in the future with the Senate on judicial nominees.
Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, stepped in last weekend, helping narrow the language so it did not impinge on presidential prerogatives.
Reid had offered to permit a vote on some of Bush’s stalled nominees for the appeals courts, including one nominee from among those Democrats opposed most strongly. Negotiators added a second to the list, then a third. That left two nominees without guarantees.
Meantime, a compromise over future nominees was elusive.
Democrats wanted the right to filibuster, while insisting Republicans abandon their threats to ban the practice.
Republicans insisted on some sort of linkage - limiting the potential for filibusters, while reserving the right to respond forcefully if Democrats broke their word.
Draft proposals, bearing language written by Reid’s staff, envisioned future filibusters only “under extraordinary circumstances.” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the leadership, weighed in from a distance. Republicans agreed each senator could exercise “his or her own discretion and judgment” in deciding whether to filibuster.
Republicans objected forcefully at other points.
At a private lunch among senators, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and other GOP leaders equated a pending draft with unilateral disarmament. They said it would allow Democrats to filibuster without fear of retaliation.
Back around the coffee table, McCain, DeWine, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. and others insisted that Democrats yield ground.
Finally, as the negotiators returned to the Capitol last Monday, the day before the scheduled vote, the centrists were optimistic they had a deal.
It called for allowing final votes on Owen, California Supreme Court Janice Rogers Brown for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor for the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Also, final votes would go ahead on three nominees for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Richard Griffin; U.S. District Court Judge David McKeague; and Wayne County, Mich., Circuit Judge Susan Bieke Neilson.
The deal specified no commitment on the Interior Department’s former top lawyer, William Myers III, for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, or Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Henry Saad for the 6th Circuit.
That morning, Reid met in his office with Nelson and Mark Pryor. Reid wanted changes in the draft to specify that there was no guaranteed final vote for two other nominees:
-Kavanaugh. As associate independent counsel under Kenneth Starr, he had leading roles investigating the Whitewater case involving President Clinton and the 1998 Clinton impeachment case. Later, in the Bush White House, Kavanaugh was one of the president’s lawyers working on getting the president’s judicial nominations through the Senate. Kavanaugh was nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Democrats argued that he was too conservative for the bench.
-Haynes. As the Pentagon’s top lawyer, he wrote a controversial memo about interrogation of prisoners at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He was nominated for the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Senate Republicans pushed back when the centrists got together last Monday evening for what proved to be their final meeting. GOP lawmakers noted that the Senate Judiciary Committee had not acted on either Kavanaugh or Haynes.
At Collins’ suggestion, their names, as well as those of McKeague, Griffin and Neilson, were dropped from the document.
Final tinkering remained.
The draft said Democrats could filibuster only in “extraordinary circumstances” and that Republicans would oppose any rules changes “in light/assuming the spirit and commitments made in this agreement.”
“In light” of, a construction credited to Graham, won out.
Collins successfully sought insertion of one additional word, obliging Democrats to “continuing” commitments.
Moments after the talks ended, six of the Democratic negotiators - Nelson, Pryor, Byrd, and Sens. Ken Salazar of Colorado, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut - walked into Reid’s office.
Schumer objected to the deletion of Kavanaugh’s name. Recognizing that the talks were over, Reid asked Democrats to support filibusters against both Kavanaugh and Haynes.
Nelson declined. Several participants in the meeting said the others agreed, although Landrieu said Friday through a spokesman that she had not. Reid’s spokesman declined comment.
The negotiators left for a celebratory news conference with their GOP counterparts. Reid praised the agreement in public.
Not so Frist.
After meeting with the GOP bargainers, he walked to the Senate floor to say pointedly he was “not a party” to the pact.
The next day, speaking to Republican colleagues, he was more blunt.
The seven GOP negotiators, one listener recalled Frist saying, “signed our rights away.”