The Senate made a deal?


Stakes Still High After Senate Makes Deal



The questions for deate are

Was this a good deal?
Why?


Did one party or another win?


Does this seem like the beginning of a new moderate movement to you or a one-time aisle crossing deal in a sea of bipartisan warfare?

It doesn't make much sense to me. The three most blasted judges by the Democrats are the ones getting the up or down vote. That would be a win for the Republcians.

However, the Democrats win the day i think because they prevented even some of the judges from getting the vote which i think is unprecedented. They also got to pull their weight around even though they were the minority party.

I was always conflicted on this issue. On the one hand i think that since the people elect the majority party into office, that those representatives have a mandate to see that their judges are appointed. On the other hand i understand we must respect minority rights and not let one majority...whichever majortiy have free reign.

In this case...i am kind of leaning towards the fact that the Democrats were more reasonable in this issue. They gave Bush 95% of his judges an ok and only contested a few. Its just the manner in which they made that clear that i had a probelm with. The Republicans were more subtle.

But in the end...this is just a testament to our democratic values. Negotiations and compromise is what this country was built on and it will continue to be built upon.

Did ya ever have the feeling you were being played?
Anyone surprised at the "last minute' compromise?

Was this a good deal?
Why?


Did one party or another win?


Does this seem like the beginning of a new moderate movement to you or a one-time aisle crossing deal in a see of bipartisan warfare?

Neither party won anything IMO. They each got what they needed and can play the plausible deniability game with those in their party that will be outraged over the meeting in the middle. As someone who finds himself Centrist i like that they ended up with a decision that reflects how America is supposed to work--I just wish they didn't have to constantly approach politics like a passion play and try to inflame hatred.
Its not a "good deal" it is the kind of deal that is supposed to be made. Far too many people assume a political mandate or get outraged that someone would deny the President his choices--some people need to remember that the President is NOT a King. Just because they wave their hand and make proclamations does not obligate Congress or the Senate OR the Judiciary to kowtow to them and prostrate themselves on the ground and give in like a crack whore in need of a fix.


I wish on the first--but no this is in no way a sign of a growing Moderate/Centrist presence. This is politics at its most orchestrated. It is simply the work of politicians protecting their turf. On the bright side once again the hard right is given a great big shovelful of broken promises.

I am relieved that this compromise was reached. The "nuclear option" would have been a mistake, and the very people who promoted it would realize this as soon as voters took a less conservative turn and they had found themselves in the minority after the next election.

I also agree with a couple of the Senators (one of them being the Republican Senator from South Carolina) who stated that this lets President Bush know that he has to listen to Congress as well.

Hooray for putting aside the partisanship in favor of the welfare of the country! I agree with Senator McCain that our country won.

If the anatomy of a "good deal" is one where neither side gets exactly what they want, then yeah, this is a good deal. Or maybe just as good of a deal as you can get from a Senate where moderates are on the endangered species list.

Before I go any further I have GOT to ask this. What is UP with Senator Ben Nelson's HAIR? Is that the worst looking rug you've ever seen? If his hair were black it would look like he was wearing a beret!

The howls of "sell-out" are already coming from the Right and the Left. Here's James Dobson of Focus On the Family's opinion and he ain't a happy man:

This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats. Only three of President Bush’s nominees will be given the courtesy of an up-or-down vote, and it's business as usual for all the rest. The rules that blocked conservative nominees remain in effect, and nothing of significance has changed. Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist would never have served on the U. S. Supreme Court if this agreement had been in place during their confirmations. The unconstitutional filibuster survives in the arsenal of Senate liberals.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=47847

Another right-wing nutjob, Gary Bauer, was teed off too:

"This is a sad day for our nation. The desire of millions of Americans to restore balance to our federal courts has been thwarted behind closed doors by 14 senators. Only three of President Bush's appointees are guaranteed an up or down vote under this sell out.

"Under this agreement it is now more likely that radical social change will continue to be forced on the American people by liberal courts committed to same sex marriage, abortion on demand and hostility to religious expression. The Republicans who lent their names to this travesty have undercut their President as well as millions of their most loyal voters. Shame on them all."

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=47850

But there are Chicken Littles on the Far Left that say the sky is falling too. On Buzzflash.com a headlined link reads: "Some deal." William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen, the scariest bunch of judicial activists you can imagine will swing the balances in appelate courts. and a poster on DailyKos.com fumes:

Moderates like Nelson and the warmongering traitor from Connecticut clearly undermined Reid when he was doing a great job. I would feel much better about our chances of regaining control in 2006 if those moderates didn't have so much power in the party. I don't think we can win an election as republican-lite.

The pundits will play around with who "won" and who "lost" but the big loser is obviously Bill Frist. Though he wasn't present at the press conference announcing the compromise, John McCain's fingerprints are all over the document and he clearly enchances his "maverick" credentials, jams up Frist's 2008 presidential hopes and shows that he's a deal maker in the Senate. Nice.

The Democrats have to feel that though they didn't block Pryor, Brown and Owen (and there are whispers that Owen isn't quite a slam dunk yet) that despite their diminished numbers they saved the filibuster and blocked some of Bush's nominees at the same time. Will Bush really start to "advise" with the Senate or just expect them to "consent" to his judicial nominees?

C'mon! We're talking about Dubya here! This is the guy who can't remember ever making a mistake.

If this deal ticks off Nighttimer, I'm all for it. Not sure what, but must be something good there.

In any case it means the American people are going to get some good judges on the Circuit Court. THAT is a win for America.

I think we will have to wait and see if this is a good deal. I believe all the judges should get an up or down vote. So clearly, the democrats gained something by insuring that the well qualified Saad and the other one (I forget his name) do not get a vote.

Ultimately, it boils down to two things: what does "extraordinary circumstances" mean? And can the democrats in the "cabal" be trusted to follow through and not filibuster the next supreme court nominee. This summer will be the test, when Rehnquist resigns and we need a new justice and a chief. We'll see if they hold to the fine traditions of the Senate then. I am not optimistic. Although, I do hold out some hope because of the well publicized nature of this "compromise". We all know that these 7 democrats gave their word on it. Question: If they go back on their word, can Frist still exercise the constitutional option?



As Scarborough noted last night (and I agree completely), the losers are sometimes the winners. McCain cemented his reputation as a maverick that bucks the republican party leadership and he alienated the religious right wing. They're all in Frist's camp now. And the question is whether a candidate can win the republican primary without them. Just like the democrats can't alienate the ultra left -- can a republican alienate the religious right and still get the nomination? We shall see. Frist may be a very happy man indeed.

I think the problem of the filibuster started when the Senate decided to change how a filibuster was done in the first place. It used to be that when you called a filibuster, you had to hold the floor by talking about everything and anything as long as you could. While the floor was occupied, nothing else could be done in the Senate. That was the power of the filibuster to promote compromise. And that was the natural restriction on it's use as well. Both sides would work for compromise to resolve an issue so that the Senate could get back to business, and neither side would use it lightly because of the work involved as well as the ramifications of halting the Senate.

Now, when someone wants to filibuster, they just say filibuster and the Senate moves on to other legislation.

If they want to reform the process, they should return the filibuster to the way is was supposed to be used. The old process had it's own built in controls, and was also much more powerful when used.

I do not think this is a good deal because it allows the filibuster to continue to be abused. The best approach, IMHO would have been to return to the filibuster of old. I also do not think it is a good deal because it resolves nothing. The Democrats allow a few judges that they do not like to get a vote on the floor, and then it is business as usual. There is not ground work laid for future compromise in what was once the most Reasonable and Moderate government body.

I think it would have been best for the nation if we returned the filibuster to it's former difficulty and glory. Not doing so, allows the Senate to continue with it's public relations games while continuing to accomplish nothing or real value.

The Republicans were threatening to overstep reason with their proposed rules changes, and the Democrats gave into the threat. I just don't see the future value in this deal for anyone other then career politicians.

I do agree that the filibuster should be returned to its original state. It shouldn't be so easy -- Let them work for it. I cannot agree that the Republicans were "overstepping reason" however. They wanted what is required under the Constitution: the advice and consent of the Senate by way of a simple majority vote. No overstepping there.

It was a compromise but the GOP got the better part of the deal IMHO. Unfortunately, Mr. Saad got thrown under the bus in the process. I don't see it as the beginning of a moderate movement. It's a one time deal that will be forgotten by Friday.

If the democrats renig on their promise not to filibuster an upcoming Supreme Court nomination, they will look like turncoats and the "moderate" members of the GOP will join Frist in eliminating the filibuster on judicial nominations. The democrats have backed their way into a corner.

I just don't understand the democrat's logic in all of this. I think they misplayed their hand yet again.

The big enchilada is the likely upcoming USSC vacancies. Why would they pick a fight over these nominations and squander their most powerful weapon for preventing Bush's Supreme Court choices? The democrats didn't really think this through if you ask me. President Bush will get most of his appeals court nominations through and 1-2 USSC seats as well. If the democrats try to pull the filibuster on them for "extraordinary" reasons, they'll look petty and mean spirited and it will cost them during the mid-term elections.

Who is in charge of this party anyway? Reid, Dean, and Pelosi have made blunder after blunder. As a republican, it doesn't bother me but if I were a democrat, I'd be highly upset at their incompetence.

No doubt. A little dog and pony show for us people out here. A little undercut by moderate republicans to take out hardliners like Frist too.

Was this a good deal?
Why?
Truthfully, I don't know. It was more about a power struggle between two parties than it was about protecting the people. Is it me or is their only an uproar when republicans aren't getting their way

Did one party or another win?
No I think neither won and in a society where winning is all that matters, there are going to be some ticked off people on both sides.

Does this seem like the beginning of a new moderate movement to you or a one-time aisle crossing deal in a see of bipartisan warfare?

Only if they make a viable third party. They can only buck their own party so many times, I think, before some dirty secret surfaces and the PR machine begins the work of painting the the horns on the wayward senators.

Hayleyanne


So here is a very simple question. Did all of Clinton Nominees get an up and down vote? Yes or no??

I understand that all they(republicans) wanted was an up-and-down vote for their president's nominees, but did they give this to all of Clinton's Nominees? If not, why all the outrage??

Two entirely different situations. The GOP took the majority in congress in 1994 (for the first time in 40 years). They were elected to the MAJORITY by the PEOPLE that they REPRESENT.

It was their right to deny Clinton his left wing judges. There were elected into that position.

In contrast, the democrats have been pulling an unprecedented parliamentary trick to shut down Bush judges who WOULD be confirmed by a majority in the Senate. Clinton's judges were shut down in committee and would have failed before the full Senate too.

These are two totally different situations and it's incorrect to mix and match them.

Does this seem like the beginning of a new moderate movement to you or a one-time aisle crossing deal in a see of bipartisan warfare?

The former.

This is begrudged moderates stepping up to the plate. The partisan hyperbole made it impossible for Frist and Reid to agree to a compromise short of "winner takes all" in the eyes of the special interests that support each party. Now that moderates have spent their usefulness they'll be properly scolded for refusing to vote along party lines.

BTW, I encourage those interested in upholding the Constitution to add your thoughts in this debate.

Did you read what Hayleyanne wrote??

They wanted what is required under the Constitution: the advice and consent of the Senate by way of a simple majority vote.

Your contention is that these are completely different situations is a spin I counted on seeing. In both cases the name of the game is "put the judge in the seat" That is what both Presidents nominated these people to do. In both cases some of the nominees were unable to get a vote, more in Clintons case!! However, I can admit to the difference. One was impeded in committee, the other on the floor.

Yet, though there are overwhelming similarities, you see these two things as "totally different situations" I've heard of mixing "apples and oranges" but this situation is like mixing "a red apple and green apple".

"we stopped them from getting an up and down vote by not allowing the nominees out of committee, they're stopping us by using a filibuster." Then they go onto claim how unprecedented it is...

IT is equivalent to say

While it is not unprecedented for a man to parachute out of a c-130, it is unprecedented for a man to jump out of a C-130, butt-naked with pink socks, a kevlar army helmet, and a thick gold run DMC necklace.

Sure they look different, but they are both doing the exact same thing!!!

When the republicans controlled the committee, those judges were rejected by the committee without a vote since they didn't even have the votes to get through committee let alone the full Senate.

It's not the same in spite of your attempts to link the two totally different situations.

In one case, you have the will of the elected majority.

In the other, you have the will of the elected majority subverted by the minority.

If such a thing can happen routinely, why bother even having elections to decide who gets to represent the people?

Maybe I am missing something here. Are there 100 senators on the Senate Committee for the Judiciary?? Are you saying that the will of American people of all hundred senators were what blocked the Clinton nominees?? Please clarify. It seems that you have some form of precognition to know that every republican senator would have voted against Clinton's nominees if they got out of committee.

Awww...the poor special intewest gwoups didn't get theiw way?

I guess that makes it: Special Interest Groups: 978,374,253,158....Moderates: 1.

But, hey, its a start. I think any compromise on this issue was a good thing. Since both sides had equal input, I think the outcome is probably the best that could be hoped for, from both sides. Bush wants to try to get his agenda through, which wasn't going to happen if he forced these nominees through. The Democrats wanted to block some of the nominees, which they've done. I'm just glad they arrived at constructive compromise, as opposed to creating yet another wedge issue, and thereby putting politics over progress.

I don't know how I can clarify it any more than I already have. The republicans controlled the majority in the Senate and thus, the majority on the committees. They were voted into that position by the people.

Under Senate rules, a nominee has to make it past the committee first. This was the case when the democrats were in charge also.

The left wing judges that Clinton appointed could not make this first step. That was the right of the republicans since they controlled the makeup of the committee.

What the full Senate would have done was moot. Those candidates couldn't make it past step one.

Perhaps the real issue you have is with our representative form of democracy? Under such a system, sometimes your side doesn't always get their way.

Ok, that made me laugh.


Hardly. I think it sends a clear message to Dubya that the filibuster is still in the arsenal and if he tries to send a idealogue up for an SC candidate the Dems reserve the right to block it.

I completely agree with OS about the current filibuster rule, though. I think its abused in its present form. The tradition of the filibuster was based on the idea that a person or group of people objected so strongly to a matter before the Congress that they were willing to continue speaking ad infinity to prevent the matter from being voted on. You had to have skin in the game and want it badly. I think for the filibuster to retain a shred of legitimacy, the old form should return.


These aren't as different as you paint them, Lord Helmet. Whether they are blocked by a filibuster or the Senate majority leader administratively tabling them, it is still a denial of advice and consent to the President by your standards.

The example you use is invalid, because you give the impression that the candidate was in fact given a vote in committee. All that is required for "administrative tabling", is agreement by the Senate majority leader to do so. That person is never given a chance to see if they would even make it out of committee. So you never know if the candidate would fail a general Senate vote. This is no different whatsoever than the minority party denying a candidate to the floor by use of filibuster. Or is it a "parliamentary trick" only if its being done by the minority party?

I believe the filibuster should remain as a device available to the minority party(s) if circumstances warrant for a particular matter, judicial nominee or otherwise. Madison was right to worry about the potential "Tyranny of the Majority". This Congress proves that potential.

I was pleased to see some effort at a compromise in this affair regardless. It means I haven't lost complete hope in our government, though its footing is precarious nonetheless.

Doc

I don't know how to clarify it any more either. There are two elected senators per state, giving us 100 senators. The party the belong to is irrelevant to how they will vote. For the will of the people to be heard there must be an up or down vote in the senate, not in a committee. The fact that Rebuplicans a had enough people to block people from getting to the senate floor does not make it any less a fact that Clinton nominees were BLOCKED.

If someone comes to eat dinner at your house it is irrelevant whether they were blocked at the gate, at the house entrance or the entry way to the kitchen were the food is. Att sometime they were impeded. Thus it is now, thus it was before with past and present nominees. All I am hearing is spin right now of how one blockage is "ok" and another is "outrage" Both blockages prevent a vote from the full senate, thus both prevent our representatives voices from being heard.

Under Senate rules, a nominee has to make it past the committee first. This was the case when the democrats were in charge also.

Is it not also allowed under senate rules to filibuster a nominee?? If not, how was it done, why did Frist propose using this "nuclear option", why would there be a need to change the rules. So now we have established that both sides blocked and both side followed the rules in doing so.... next??



And the right wing judges couldn't get past the filibuster of the democrats. Filibustering is the right of a senate minority. Now we have established that both sides blocked, followed the rules, and worked within their rights.... next???



The full Senate is the full voice of the people. So the full voice of the people is a moot subject in your eyes when dealing with democrat nominees but not republican nominees!! Interesting.....



Exactly....

Was this a good deal?
Why?
It was a good deal in that it averted a confrontation that could only have hurt the nation. Had the Republicans proceeded with the nuclear option, the Democrats would have initiated a work slowdown, the Republicans would have gleefully blamed the Democrats for obstructionism, and the work of government would have been buried in all the partisanship. This compromise averted that.

However, the compromise really resolves nothing. The Democrats reserve the right to filibuster in extraordinary situations. In other words, if Bush nominates somebody too far from the center, the Democrats will filibuster. Meanwhile, the Republicans reserve the right to bring back the nuclear option. This compromise will work only if President Bush cooperates by nominating judges who are moderately right of center. If he continues to pick far right nominees, this problem will come back. I think that the Democrats are, in effect, saving their powder for the Supreme Court. Let us all pray that President Bush doesn't go too far in his nominations for those seats. However, President Bush's record is as a divider, not a uniter, and so I greatly fear that he will deliberately pick the most extreme judge he can in order to provoke the situation.

Did one party or another win?
Neither side won, neither side lost; that's the nature of a compromise.

Does this seem like the beginning of a new moderate movement to you or a one-time aisle crossing deal in a see of bipartisan warfare?
No, I see it as only a truce in a polarized body politic.

Several other commentators have claimed that the filibuster is unconstitutional; this issue has been discussed elsewhere and we should remember that this claim is highly controversial.

Other commentators have expressed suspicion that the Democrats will not honor their commitments in this deal. The only solid commitment in the deal is that 3 of President Bush's nominees are given a free pass through the thicket. The Democrats reserve their option to filibuster, and the Republicans reserve their nuclear option.

There are two significant political ramifications to this. First, the extremist wing of the Republican party has been foiled in its efforts to run roughshod over the Democrats. The moderates refused to go along with such an egregious act and forced the radicals to compromise, something that the radicals had absolutely refused to contemplate. They are furious and, as one commentator noted, are now howling for the heads of the moderates. In this they are overreaching themselves and are exposing their radicalism to the body of the American public, which wanted above all a compromise, not a confrontation. Much of the radical success of the last few years has been of the "wolf in sheep's clothing" type. As Shakespeare said, the truth will out, and it has certainly been outed by this confrontation.

The second ramification is that the Democrats came out looking more compromising than the Republicans. Senator Frist's obvious anger at the compromise was politically idiotic; all he accomplished by it was to demonstrate to the American public that he is a divider, not a uniter. One commentator observed that Frist has emerged from this with his support from the radical wing of the Republican party intact, while McCain has doomed his chances in the Republican primaries. Nothing could be better for the Democrats. In America's eyes, McCain was one of the heroes of this compromise. If the Republicans reject hero McCain for villain Frist, the message sent to America is that the Republicans have been taken over by the radicals.

The best hope for the Republicans in this case is that this sorry episode be forgotten. However, that won't happen. Instead, the most likely outcome is that President Bush will nominate a far right judge to the Supreme Court, the Democrats filibuster, the Republicans invoke the nuclear option, and both sides accuse each other of breaking the deal. However, what will stick in the minds of most people is that the Democrats made the first attempt at compromise, and that will give them a moral edge in the finger-pointing.

This is backwards. The democrats didn't make a first attempt at compromise, they were in the minority position. The republicans had the power to make this issue go away but they decided to compromise. The choice to compromise wasn't the democrat's to give.

The republicans extended their hand. If the democrats bite that hand, then the 7 republicans who compromised will have the political cover to go along with Frist.

The democrats didn't "save their powder". They fired nearly all of it at lower judges and now are almost out of ammo with a USSC seat coming up this year.

Then why are Senator Frist and so many Republicans so angry?

For exactly the reason that I stated. The republicans had the power to make this issue away but 7 of them decided to compromise.

As I stated, this wasn't something that the democrats could do. They could only threaten and demand that the republicans compromise with THEM.

Seven of them did just that.

I personally don't share in the anger from the right. We get 3 judges confirmed and when the filibuster is tried on the 4th one, we claim the democrats are liars who can't be trusted and then get the constitutional option passed. All in advance of the USSC confirmation process.

The democrats fired their shot too early. Now, they have to allow Bush's nominees to go forward or look like turncoats. Extraordinary circumstances? The republicans can just point to the 3 justices that will be confirmed immediately as part of the "deal" and challenge the democrats to show how new ones are "worse" then the ones the vilified for months.

The republicans move the ball 3 justices down the field and then press for more.

Contrary to the rantings of people like Limbaugh today, I think it was a good move for the GOP.

Well, I'm willing to guess that the 7 Republican Senators who signed the deal were, unlike you, doing so in good faith. Call me naive, if you like. I still like to be believe in bipartisan collegiality.

With respect to "collegiality", as the song says, "What's love got to do with it??".

The issue isn't Republican good faith. It's democrat good faith. How are the democrats going to look their 7 friends in the eye when, after they confirm Brown, Owen, and Pryor, they claim that Saad somehow represents "extraordinary circumstances" that must be filibustered?

The democrats demonized the 3 who will be confirmed to such an extent that they have no more keys remaining on the left side of their partisan rhetorical piano. How are they going to claim that Meyers and Saad are somehow worse than the three conservatives that didn't trigger a filibuster??

Therefore, when Saad or Meyers come up for a vote, and they pull this stunt again, Frist should exert his rights and change the Senate rules to prevent anymore of this nonsense. And the majority of the7 republican defectors will have the political cover that they need. It'll look like the democrats didn't keep their end of the bargain. I fully expect them not to.

I know the far right have been howling all day about this. I think they are being short sided. Get 3 judges confirmed... then another.... and another... and before you know it, Bush has loaded the judiciary with judges who may actually start judging on the basis of the constitution, not legislating from the bench to pass the liberal agenda outside of the representative process of democracy.

Well, under Senate rules the minority can filibuster and make their wishes felt on the Senate as they were elected to office to do.

Our system makes compromise come into play sooner or later. When the Republicans want to make things work out in their way they use the tools they have at their disposal.

Many of Clinton's nominees did not get an up or down vote and judicial seats languished for long periods of time. Many of the Senators involved in blocking these judges, most of whom I am sure were highly rated candidates from a middling moderate president, showed up with righteous indignation in this case that was more political show and crocodile tears than reality.

Name calling all of Clinton's judges as leftist extremists only contributes to the problem.

14 moderate judges showed as that civil compromise is possible. They are receiving hate mail today. I hope they are receiving more notes of congratulations in protecting our legislative process from a heinous war.

When? How about "if"? You're assuming a great deal here. Why don't you wait for them to commit the crime before pronouncing judgment? They just might surprise you. Besides, you don't want to be held to that prediction, do you?

I hope they surprise me. But you can't turn a dog into a cat.

You can hold me to my prediction if you'd like.

It wasn't even a deal... it was a complete cave-in by 7 Democrats. The Democrats were filibustering, now they aren't.




To answer the question, ask yourself what each party got.

The Republicans got votes on their 3 most controversial candidates.

The Democrats didn't get anything. They received empty air. The Republicans did not abandon the "nuclear option", matter of fact the 7 GOP senators were explicit: if the Democrats use the filibuster in anything but "extraordinary circumstance" then the "nuclear option" will be used. If Brown and Owens aren't "extraordinary", then none of the other candidates are either.

The power of this deal lies in 2 of the 7 GOP senators. That's all the Republicans need--2 Senators--to invoke the nuclear option. Meaning, if only 2 GOP senators believe the Democrats have broke faith, the deal is off.

Frankly, I don't think any of the 7 Democrats would vote against closure for any of the 7 nominations. The only time they will consider using the filibuster is for Supreme Court Nominations, and believe me, this "deal" won't mean anything then.




I hope that is meant as a joke.

I'm getting dizzy from all the spin in this thread coming from you, lordhelmet.

The differences between the blocking of Clinton's judicial nominees and those of Bush are not totally different situations. It is your analysis that is incorrect.

The job of the U.S. Senate is to "advise and consent," not "obstruct and deny." Let's get that straight from the get-go. It is not the right of the majority party in Congress to block the nominees the president sends up to them. They can deny that nominee the position they are applying for, but to do it simply because the Senate is made up of more Republicans than Democrats is merely an exercise in power.

It was their right to deny Clinton his left wing judges. There were elected into that position.

Currently the MAJORITY of the American people are represented by 44 Democrats than the 55 Republicans who represent the majority of the Senate, but not the populace. The numerical advantage gives the GOP the right to set the agenda and win the day on the majority of the issues----but it isn't carte blanche to do whatever they decide they want to do. If the Democrats held the majority in the Senate they could use their numbers to foil the president at every turn, but they would be branded as obstructionists, and rightly so.

President Clinton consulted with Judiciary Committee chairman Orrin Hatch before he submitted Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court. President Bush has not done so. He has just presented his slate of nominees and expected a rubber stamp approval from the Senate.

In contrast, the democrats have been pulling an unprecedented parliamentary trick to shut down Bush judges who WOULD be confirmed by a majority in the Senate. Clinton's judges were shut down in committee and would have failed before the full Senate too.

"Unprecendented parliamentary trick?" How about the one Hatch pulled when he allowed the Senatorial "hold" to be used to deny Clinton's judges not only a up or down vote, but even a hearing.

We will never know if Clinton's nominees would have failed before the full Senate because they were denied what Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor and Priscilla Owen are going to get---a vote. Not every Republican Senator would vote against Clinton's nominees purely based on partisan reasons. If that were the case, why have Democrats voted for so many of Bush's 200+ judicial nominees?

Or are Democrats the only ones that will vote for nominees that aren't of their party?

We would all be a lot better off if we could get past our love of ideological purity and try to reach that common ground that 14 senators did in the face of the disapproval of their leadership and the pressure of each side's most rabid special interest groups.

Then again, some of us just seem to thrive on conflict and division.

I agree completely. The Republicans are going to hold the Democrats to the very strict "extraordinary circumstances" standard. It will look very bad if they filibuster the remaining appellate nominees right away? What does this say about their credibility when it comes to the pledge to only filibuster in extraordinary circumstances. They will want to save it for the Supreme Court.



I think Bush will nominate Scalia for Chief Justice and they can't filibuster him. Then he could bring up Owens or Brown right away to replace Scalia. How could they turn around and filibuster either of them?

That's a great point Hayley. If that is done, then the Democratic argument falls completely apart.

1) How can a man that was confirmed unanimously, 98-0, be viewed as an "extraordinary circumstance"? (By a Democratic held Senate, if I remember correctly.)

2) How can a senator vote to confirm Owens or Brown (they'll both get 60+ votes easily) and then turn around and say they are an "extraordinary circumstance" months later?

If the Dems try either, then the deal is off. The "moderate" Republicans have said as much.

I agree with you completely Hayley, great tactical idea... give a call to W and tell him to make it happen.

It is not a carte blanche--but it doesn't need to be. Majority rules whether you want to admit it or not. You can call it "foiling" or "obstructing" or whatever you like, it's the way issues are decided: by majority rule. What is truly unfair is when the minority thwarts the majority. Americans cast their votes at the ballot box and many of them did so with the expectation that their republican representatives would support and make sure that their preferred judicial candidates got nominated and confirmed-- particularly to the appellate courts and especially to the supreme court. If the democrats aren't happy about that they need to focus on winning more elections.

Well, it appears the fresh "deal" is likely dead before it begins regardless: (MSNBC)

I can't help but wonder if Frist is committing political suicide here or merely attempting to appease the James Dobson's of the world. We'll see. Either way it looks like Frist is back to playing poker with the Dems. The next move is theirs, I guess.


Isn't that a little grandiose, Hayleyanne? The poll now would be skewed due to current events but I'd be willing to wager that easily less than half of the 52% that went to the ballot box in November had our judicial system on their minds when they cast their votes for Bush or against Tom Daschle, et al. Most folks can't even tell you all of the members of the Supreme Court. And a good chunk of those are likely the same people that still believed Saddam was involved in 9/11 and had WMD after the Darfur report and the 9/11 commission report. (present company excluded, of course)

Doc

Actually Doclotus, I don't think it is grandiose at all, I think my assessment is realistic. I would say the two biggest reasons someone voted for Bush was either (1) security or (2) judicial nominations. In fact, I believe the "religious right" voted primarily on this issue alone. I have seen so many emails/publications etc from various conservative/ religious/ family values type groups that specifically target that issue. I was just looking at something from a Catholic group today that was discussing the importance of judicial nominations with respect to the big social/values issues of the day: abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage; stem cell research and one other one (I forget). It explained how the judicial nominations process works, discussed "judicial activism" and listed out lots of contact information for people so they can get their views out to their senators. I agree that many americans can't tell you who sits on the Supreme Court, but they sure are focused on getting good judges on the bench.

Their argument would be that neither of these two have had enough experience in the appellate courts to handle the responsibilities of the Supreme Court. There have been some Supreme Court justices who didn't serve their time in the trenches but they weren't at the far end of the political spectrum. Besides, the ABA would issue new ratings for them on the Supreme Court and they would undoubtedly be held to stricter standards for that, resulting in lower ratings.

Justice Owens lacks experience? That's just not true. Priscilla Owens is a justice on the Texas Supreme Court and has been since 1994. She has more practical knowledge and experience related to the "duties" of a high court than say... Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That justice was nominated by Bill Clinton (and approved by the republican Senate) in spite of the fact that she was the general counsel for the far- left advocacy group, the ACLU. She had zero experience at the State Supreme Court level.

Ginsburg


The opposition to Owens has nothing to do with her "experience". The democrats, who are currently controlled by N.O.W, NARAL, the ACLU, and People for the American Way, etc., will fight tooth and nail to prevent any restrictions on abortion including parental notification when minors attempt to obtain one. That's the reason that they oppose Owens and why they came down so hard on Pickering.

What the far left groups who hold the marionette strings to people like Reid, Kennedy, Schumer, Kerry and Clinton consider the "mainstream of judicial thought" is for a potential jurist to pass the litmus test that Roe v. Wade be cast in stone and that no restrictions on abortion of any kind (including 3rd trimester partial birth abortion and parental notification) be found "constitutional".

But, Owen WILL be confirmed and either she or Gonzalez will be nominated to the USSC.

As I stated above, I think that the "deal" struck in the Senate favors the GOP long-term. The democrat's elation at their "victory" will be short lived when they realize they have allowed a serious crack in their defense.

Hello Helmet its the kettle--your black.
Today I watched Frist jump and dance today as Bauer and the religious right jerked his strings.
As far as the supreme court I agree the republicans will get their nominees and be able to stack the supreme court with people who agree with them. The 'activist" judges of the left will be replaced with their counterparts from the right.
The filibuster herring has served its purpose well.

The above statement is from the link you provided. Excuse me, but Justice Ginsberg served 11 years on a federal appeals court before being elevated to the United States Supreme Court.

Ginsburg



This would be quite a jump for either of them. Both have served on the Texas Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court deals with Constitutional questions, civil cases as well as criminal appeals—particularly capital cases. It might interest you to note that the Texas Supreme Court hears only civil appeals. This is just another reason they should not be confirmed a federal appeals court and certainly not to the United states Supreme Court. You’d probably have to live here to know that.

http://www.courts.state.tx.us/publicinfo/crt_stru.htm



I guess that means the case is closed. As someone else said earlier, if you keep repeating the same thing over an over, it tends to become fact. Let’s call that Coulter Syndrome.

I forgot about that Bof, you might be right. I have been thinking alot about who Bush will nominate to the Supreme Court. In recent years, as you have pointed out, they seem to come from a particular mold, with a significant amount of experience on the federal appellate bench. Should the mold be broken? If anyone will break it, Bush will. It might not be a bad thing. The problem, is that when you don't have a strong record below, it is difficult to predict their judicial style. Bush, like Eisenhower, may go outside the mold and nominate a politician. Wouldn't that be something? Warren was nominated by Eisenhower and it is hard to believe now that he was the governor of California. I don't think he will nominate Gonzales because of the "criticism" associated with Owen. I am very curious. Rehnquist will step down at the end of the term in June. Who will it be?

If Bush really wanted to break the mold, he'd nominate Orrin Hatch. That would be a very bold move.

I really think he favors Gonzalez though. Bush is very much a people person and he sticks with his buddies through thick and thin. Alberto is one of his people.

Very interesting. I have heard the theory that he will nominate a senior senator like Hatch-- who is conservative, but also rooted in the senate. It is unlikely that they will filibuster a colleague. I like that idea. We break the mold and shake things up a bit! There really are benefits to having a "politician" on the court who is an experienced "consensus" builder. Warren was the best at consensus building. If we could get a conservative counterpart to Warren that would be a good balance.

One other factor that may favor this choice. Hatch is pretty close personal friends with Ted Kennedy. Kennedy may not vote for him on political grounds, but I doubt he'd filibuster him.

Hatch book

Well, I hope it doesn't put the kibosh on his chances, but I would have no problem with President Bush nominating Orrin Hatch for a seat on the Supreme Court. If he were to make Hatch the Chief Justice that would be a bold move on Bush's part.

A conservative president should be expected to nominate conservative jurists. That should not come as a shock to anyone. What gets the heads spinning is when the nominee has a colorful and controversial past such as Robert Bork or are obvious mediocrities.

I just don't think that James Dobson or his ilk are going to consider Hatch as a "true believer." Hatch is solidly conservative, but not a rabid one. That could hurt his chances.

Back in February, the New York Times speculated who might replace Rehnquist (assuming Scalia or Thomas are promoted to Chief Justice).

The officials who spoke about the expectations of Chief Justice Rehnquist's retirement, along with many other lawyers, noted how disruptive it was for a justice to leave in midterm, supporting the notion that the chief justice is hoping to get to the natural break in June, the time when most justices choose to step down..

The officials said that among the candidates being considered most seriously for nomination to the Supreme Court are a handful of federal appellate judges. Included on the list are Judges Michael W. McConnell of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, John G. Roberts of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and J. Harvie Wilkinson III and J. Michael Luttig, both of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Another possible candidate is Judge Samuel A. Alito of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, who sits in Newark.

If Chief Justice Rehnquist were to be the first of the current justices to leave the court, Mr. Bush would have to decide whether to nominate a new chief justice or elevate one of the sitting associate justices and nominate someone to fill the vacancy that would create.

The potential outside nominees are all judicial conservatives of strong, if varying, degrees. One outside adviser suggested that Judge McConnell had risen in the White House's handicapping because, among other things, he had been supported in his nomination to the appeals court by dozens of liberal law professors.

http://faculty.smu.edu/jkobylka/SCtItems/WHRupdate.htm

I'm inclined to believe that this was a bad deal, that the Republicans lost, and that the new "moderate" movement is merely a bunch of power-hungry senators seeking to gain attention, fame and preserve their precious status quo. As evidence, I submit the following contradictory passages.

From the "deal" memo (my emphasis added):
MOA text


Here is what the Federalist Papers had to say about the advice and consent role, which to be clearly a "yes / no" vote and NOT prior consultation. EMPHASIS is in the original. From #66. Just for context, Hamilton is arguing against the Senate as a court for Impeachments.



I've heard the Democrats talk about putting together a list of judges that they like, that they would approve, etc. This is completely contradictory to Article II. The executive branch nominates (chooses), and the senate appoints (votes up / down). Setting up a Senate-approved "pool" of judges is not Constitutional.

You confuse legality with politics. If the Democrats create such a list, it will have no legal force, and the Democrats know this, as do the Republicans. It will be a useful means of obviating future battles, should the President choose to consult it. Perhaps you find political battles invigorating, but most people, myself included, would rather have politicians who work with each other to come up with the fastest, smoothest solutions to our problems. The Democrats are participating in that process by taking a constructive approach rather than a confrontational approach.

To follow your argument - Let's say that the FBI were to compile a list of people that they would arrest, that they would feel comfortable arresting. You know - troublemakers, terrorists, that sort of thing. They call it the "J Edgar Hoover COINTELPRO enemies list." It's not, you know, legal, but it will really smooth things along when someone is looking for a search warrant. The people will be better served by this illegal list, since the FBI is "participating in the process" to come up with the fastest, smoothest solution to our problems.

OK, that was a little far-fetched. The Senate is supposed to debate. It's a debating society. They have arcane rules for debating, and debating is healthy. Adversarial politics is not inherently a bad thing. Good things can and do come out of a good fight. The Constitution made this possible, I agree with it and I resent erosion of these principles in the name of expediency.

For once we have achieved agreement!


No, it's supposed to make laws, ratify treaties, etc. Debate is a means to this end, but only one means. Cooperation, compromise, and deal-making are other means to this end.


In three sentences you elevate adversarial politics from "not a bad thing" to "a constitutional principle". That's quite a trick.

The use of cooperation, compromise, and deal-making does not erode the Constitution. It's been a fundamental part of politics from the beginning of politics. Indeed, the Constitutional Convention was marked by some adversarial debate, but by much more cooperation, compromise, and deal-making. That's the only way they could have ironed out their disagreements. Had they relied on a purely adversarial approach, we wouldn't have a Constitution.