No one is suggesting that we eliminate "cooperation, compromise and deal-making." I'm merely noting that the separation of powers is there for a reason. President picks judges. Senate says "yes / no." If the outcome is to be yes or no and there is disagreement, the Senate can argue, cooperate, compromise, debate, whatever. Maybe if they have time, they can vote on some judges. I'd much rather see a real, adversarial debate take place vs. some backroom deal-making. If 100 hours isn't enough time to say why an 81 / 100 vote justice is "extreme" then the Senators are just grandstanding, not advising / consenting. What they shouldn't be doing is attempting to usurp executive branch power by creating some judge wishlist for the president to refer when he's in a nominating mood. This criticism is not just for the Democratic Senators, I'm pretty sure that the "maverick" Republicans were talking about this too, even more evidence of a shameless power grab.

Did one party or another win?



I’m not sure we know which side, if either, won. I think Norah O’Donnell was probably correct in saying that this was a “temporary” fix. This is sort of like an opening act at a rock concert or a prize fight between two unknowns, while waiting for the Heavy Weight Champion World and his number one challenger to enter the ring. Think U. S. Supreme Court—that’s the headliner

Here’s O’Donnell on Scarborough Country last night:



Meanwhile, I suppose there is enough “get-even” in my spirit, that I’ve enjoyed all the wailing and gnashing of teeth by conservatives—particularly religious conservatives. See below from later on Scarborough Country:



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7980594/

And what did Dobson have to say:



http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/23/221622/176

Dr. Dobson you make it sound like Judas is back in town.

And there was even more moaning and groaning on Hardball:

From the Regular Edition



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7980428/

And from a Special Edition



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7980441/

So Mahoney is threatening John McCain. Fine, what can they do to him in 2008 that Bush/Rove didn’t do to him in 2000 in South Carolina? Let Frist and McCain slug it out. It only helps the Democrats, but just so you’ll know (if you haven't already guessed), I’m pulling for McCain.

Sorry, I can't resist - John McCain's 30 Pieces of Silver Collection

Sorry again.

If y'all thought the wailing, moaning and gnashing of teeth on Hardball was bad, you should take a look at the forums at Free Republic - it's like "I'm taking my ball and going home."

In addition to vows to leave the party which has so shamelessly pandered to their minority causes, the place is rife with with calls to "punish the RINO 7" and march on Washington to protest "McCain's Mutiny" and promulgate massive letter-writing and phone-call-making campaigns. Dear Free Republicans: Does this sound familiar? "It's over. You lost. Move on."

If this compromise does, indeed, drive a lot of the more radical elements from the GOP (as dozens are threatening at Free Republic), then the Republican Party has won big time. Were the GOP to become more moderate, they could hold Congress and the White House indefinitely.

Politically, I think the Democrats (and the few moderate Republicans not marching in lockstep with Frist) have won this battle - at least in the media. But the Supreme Court nominations are the war. By summer's end, this compromise will all but be forgotten and the whole thing will start over. Democrats will attempt to filibuster activist conservative nominees (if they have any sense of decency), Republicans will try another nuclear option (if they have any sense of entitlement), and - who knows? - maybe next time good sense will prevail.

At the same time, I do not think this was "a good deal" for the republic. In order to have quashed the right of filibuster for judicial nominations, Senate Republicans would have had to have broken at least five of the Senate's own rules. They would have done so with impunity, of course, but history would judge them harshly and they would have crippled their own party should they ever again find themselves in a minority. To spare Senate Republicans the ignominy of taking this illegal action, the Democratic minority (which, in the Senate, represents a majority of US citizens) have caved on allowing at least two of the worst conservative ideologues ever nominated for the federal bench their "consent" and they have left the door open to have their legal right to filibuster future nominees abrogated without a fight. Hopefully, they will disregard this part of the "compromise" with as much impunity as the Republicans were prepared to disregard Senate rule and practices, though I'm not sure they have either the the gumption or a sufficient lack of ethics - unlike their counterparts.

Oh - by the way, carlitoswhey, Alexander Hamilton notwithstanding, there is nothing in the Constitution which would prohibit anyone from submitting a shortlist of candidates to a president for appointments, least of all a Senator. All the Constitution says is that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint". There is not a thing in that document that precludes the exertion of choice or any form of "Advice" before, during, or after the appointment process. Federalist Paper #66 is well and good for fans of Alexander Hamilton and his spin, but it is not the Constitution.

To spare Senate Republicans the ignominy of taking this illegal action, the Democratic minority (which, in the Senate, represents a majority of US citizens) have caved on allowing at least two of the worst conservative ideologues ever nominated for the federal bench their "consent" and they have left the door open to have their legal right to filibuster future nominees abrogated without a fight.

Good points there Wertz. The Repubs are looking like spoiled kids with all the railing against the compromise. I also like your sidebar comment about how protecting the rights of the minority (EC, two senators per state) have put the Repubs into power in the first place.

It's a little sad, actually, to watch the wax melting off the wings. Just a little though.

Deep inside, I'm quite happy with the way things are turning around. What's that thing about pride coming before the fall? And the other one about the story is always the same, just that the characters change?

I need to promote our Demo senator, Ken Salazar, here. We made a darn good choice with him. I think part of the fits that Repubs are throwing about McCain is an attempt to draw attention from one of the Demo stars.

This doesn't deserve a "nice try but," rather a "have you no self-pride?"

Nobody lost. It was a compromise. Look it up, it's how things are supposed to work in a democracy. You know, as opposed to a tyranny.

Erasmussimo, I think you are confusing the motive here. This 'list' would not be prepared to avoid a confrontationation...it is designed specifically to create one. No one expects anyone on that list to be chosen....the list is just there for the Democrats to claim that they're adopting a compromise position, when in fact they're not. It is there solely to help them score political points on the issue. They have decided, in fact, that scoring political points on this issue is more important than following the Constitutionally specified process. They're trying to get in the driver's seat.... a rol specifically delegated to the President. Not exactly the stuff of compromise. If you doubt this....lets wait a few months, and replay the scenario. Beer's on me if I'm wrong...but I'll tell you up front that you'll owe me a pint

hint: if they were really trying to compromise....why wouldn't they have submitted the list in private for discussion? The only reason to go public is to make it a confrontational issue.



I agree...I'm pretty disgusted with the spin being put on this by the right wing talking heads. Let's review exactly what happened, from the words of one of the naysayers directly...



So, three nominees will be given a direct vote, and for the rest, it's (horrors!) business as usual. I'm sorry...I just don't see the whole doomsday thing here...am I missing something? or just (horrors, again!) not buying the rhetoric?



While the political outcome you describe here would probably still have come about...the Republican's weren't planning on breaking any rules. They were going to change them...which they have every right to do. It would have been a big political throwdown....with the Dems using their right to fillibuster, and the Repubs changing the rules to take it away, followed by more of the same. Politically, the results would still be the same, though, I think...although I would say that both sides would lose in a protracted fight over this, which is probably what drove the compromise.

Hobbes


I kind of think they went public to put it on record, ahead of time, that they are willing to compromise. A confrontation is bound to happen regardless, because the new republican philosophy is "We're up here, you're down there..." It really is unimportant what happened in the past or how it may affect the future because "you're either with them or against them."
Let's say the Democrats were to submit a list in private, viewing the past 5 years of complete Republican leadership, what makes you believe that they will care what the Dems suggest. I submit that this list would be ignored and the Republican spin would be that the Dems gave them "no option" but to destroy the filibuster on this option. By giving a list in and of itself is a sort of compromise, now the outright rejection of the list, as it seems many Republicans are moving to right now, is an out right rejection of even trying to compromise.
I think if these 14 wayward senators were to come up with a list instead of the "Democrats" it would be the best possible way to ensure a list that is moderate.
C-Whey



As I argued earlier, the Republicans prevented Clinton nominees from receiving an up/down vote, where was all the republican outrage then for the lack of respect to the Constitution.

Also, while there were a few negative remarks from some people on the left, I am amazed, but not surprised, by the amount of negative remarks coming from the right. It just seems like more fodder for my "republicans expect you to be a blind follower" cannon. It goes without saying that all humans are capable of thinking on their own, but with the overwhelming "your with us or against us" conservative mindset I think this is another example of punishing dissenters, when one does think outside the parameters given to them.

I have not seen the list; can you point me to it? If it contains only liberal judges, then yes, it's merely a political exercise. But if it contains conservative judges as well, then I think it represents genuine good faith. Does it contain any conservative judges?


Given the lack of transparency on the part of this Administration, I think it was a prudent precaution on the part of the Democrats to make the list public. It is entirely reasonable for the Democrats to fear that the Administration would take their list, toss it in the garbage, and then claim that it was a biased, unrealistic list. Better to keep everybody on the up-and-up with some transparency in government.

It certainly looked like they were planning on breaking a few rules - at least if they followed Frist's plan. As outlined by Sen. Kennedy (among others), they would have had to have broken:

• Paragraph 1 of Rule V, which requires one day's specific written notice if a Senator intends to try to suspend or change any rule
• Paragraph 2 of Rule XXII, which requires a petition, a wait, and a 2/3 vote to stop debate on a rules change
• and, to accomplish the above, Paragraph 2 of Rule V, which provides that the Senate Rules remain in force from Congress to Congress, unless they are changed in accordance with the existing rules.

And, as the Senate Republicans were pretending to be proceeding on a constitutional basis, they would have had to have to broken the invariable rule of practice that constitutional issues must not be decided by the presiding officer but must be referred by the presiding officer to the entire Senate for full debate and decision.

You are correct in saying that Senate Republicans have every right to change the rules, but incorrect to assume that they intended to effect that change within the parameters of the existing rules. Senate Rules cannot be changed by a simple majority without going through the procedure outlined above - and that is exactly what they were going to attempt. So, again, this compromise prevented the breaking of the Senate's own rules - which is probably good for everyone.

I would also agree with Erasmussimo that it is pure speculation to presume that any proposed list presented by Senate Democrats would be prepared to create confrontation. It's equally speculative to presume that it would be drawn up to avoid confrontation. Why bother presuming either apart from attempting to undermine what could be another attempt at compromise?