187 Comments

1. Patrick Tyson:

I love this game!

May 23, 2005 - 7:59 pm 2. Jamie Irons:

I admit that I am woefully ignorant in this matter, but it seems to me that the Republicans conceded rather a lot.

Jamie Irons

May 23, 2005 - 8:00 pm 3. Rick Ballard:

Excellent win for the Dems. Well thought out and well fought. Very close to George Mitchell style infighting with a clear positive outcome.

On the positive side for the Reps, John “No Brain” McCain is finished. The Reps will suffer in fundraising for a bit (at least from me, they will) but when the Dems finally sting – and they will- McCain will be confirmed as the egotistic fool that he has always been. DeWine is going to have trouble in Ohio – his is the vote I don’t understand. I’ll be sending money to his primary challenger though.

Again, my compliments to the Dems for a well played hand.

May 23, 2005 - 8:07 pm 4. thedragonflies:

What I notice is that the Dems agreed not to filibuster except “under extraordinary circumstances.” But, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia would likely be considered “extraordinary.” Indeed, the Dem mantra has always been that these judges under consideration were far “outside the mainstream” and thus were examples of “extraordinary circumstances.” Looks to me like the Dems kept their nuclear option.

But I expected to see the Reps making a statement that they would keep the option to change the rules with a 51 vote margin also in “extraordinary circumstances.” But, they didn’t. They negotiated away their power. They became powerless, it seems to me, on purpose. I don’t understand why.

My first choice has always been the one advocated by Dick Morris, which is to change a different rule, get rid of the silent filibuster, and make the filibusterers stand a speak, endlessly, on cable TV, and be seen as tying up the Senate, day in and day out. The gentlemen’s filibuster requires gentlemen, and it appears to me that the Dems have abandoned any pretense of the civility of gentlemen.

May 23, 2005 - 8:10 pm 5. madawaskan:

Let the Dems win this battle but Republicans should focus on winning the war.

The war is the Senate seats that come open in 2006. Republicans threatening not one more dime are throwing support in effect to the Democrats-who would have been abysmal in reaction to 9/11.

Survival of our form of government should be priority number one for any political party and their legitimacy should be derived from that.

Republicans making threats to withdraw support from the RNC should remember one fo the paramount rules of negotiation is never,ever bluff.

You better be ready to suffer the consequences.

May 23, 2005 - 8:15 pm 6. Mark in Mexico:

Republican win. The object was to force a change to the the status quo. Change has been effected to the advantage of the president. He will have to jettison maybe two nominees, but the rest should sail through unless the Democrats welch on the deal, which I expect. See quotes from various senators and look who is still breathing fire and spitting highly partison rhetoric. Hint: It is not a Republican

May 23, 2005 - 8:17 pm 7. Thom:

Although I cannot vote against Snowe, Chaffee or DeWine in 2006, anyone who challenges them (in either the primary or general election) will see a nice donation from me.

McCain and Graham will go no further in the party.

May 23, 2005 - 8:21 pm 8. Rick Ballard:

The Dragonflies,

I’d save the wrath for McCain – he let his Hindenberg ego guide him as always and he just followed it off a cliff. The Dems just played on the weakness of his character (I know he’s a war hero but he’s a lousy politician.)

Mark in Mexico – no way a Rep win. McConnell couldn’t enforce discipline and that is never a win. I understand Chaffee, Snowe, Collins and Warner but DeWine is a first termer and should have been brought to heel.

May 23, 2005 - 8:21 pm 9. madawaskan:

My first choice has always been the one advocated by Dick Morris, which is to change a different rule, get rid of the silent filibuster, and make the filibusterers stand a speak, endlessly, on cable TV, and be seen as tying up the Senate, day in and day out

Jack Kemp[I know Venezuela] also forwarded a like minded idea. In effect get rid of Byrd’s dual track option.

It would be entertaining to see Byrdhave to do a filibuster like they were originally intended and be made to hold his water but then that Depends…

May 23, 2005 - 8:24 pm 10. Rick Ballard:

Madawaskan,

A strike by contributors is needed to give the Rep leadership something to beat the wimps with. DeWine, Chafee and Collins need to be told that they better get red hot on their local fund raising ’cause they are not going to get a dime from the RNC or the Senate committee. When I hear that has been done I’ll consider giving again.

May 23, 2005 - 8:26 pm 11. AlphaBettor:

They’re moaning about this at Free Republic AND Democratic Underground, so it must be a good deal. This is the Senate at its best: striking a compromise that cools the partisan passions on both sides of the aisle.

May 23, 2005 - 8:31 pm 12. Sandy P:

So, what was DeWine promised, didn’t he look at how OH voting went?

Blacks by 16%, IIRC, because they’re conservative.

However, at Polipundit, someone ventured over to the dark side and they’re screaming, too.

McClure says this:

If these Republicans would look at settlement rationally, they would

recognize that it is a complete victory.

First, Democrats are forced to let three of the Presidentís nominees

come up for a vote. We will now see these filibustered nominees win

confirmation with 55-59 votes. So much for the Democratic argument that

filibustered nominees are extremists.

Second, the President did not have to drop, as earlier proposed

settlements said, two of his nominees. There is no decision on either

nominee, and I expect Frist will call for a vote on their nominations

shortly.

Third, the decision is an admission of failure by the Democratic

leadership. If he were confident that it had the votes to overcome the

constitutional option, Reid would have nixed any negotiations. Instead,

he has to let three of the Presidentís ìextremistî nominees win

confirmation without any nominee being voted down.

Fourth, we can expect a Supreme Court vacancy this summer. With the

eyes of the nation upon them, with their claim that Bushís nominees are

extremists in logical shreds, Democrats will have to either commit

political suicide by filibustering or let the SCOTUS nominee go through

the Senate.

Fifth, if Democrats continue to filibuster judicial nominees, it gives Republicans a

potent issue to portray Democratic Senators in Red States as obstructionists.

In short, this is the submission of the minority to the will of the

majority. Democrats and wobbly Republicans can spin it as they will,

but you, my readers, will I hope see otherwise.

May 23, 2005 - 8:33 pm 13. Sandy P:

–We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word ‚ÄúAdvice‚Äù speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President‚Äôs power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.—-

Blatant powergrab, if the FF wanted the Senate to have priority, it would have been under legislative powers, not pres powers.

And the screaming we’ve endured because of daring to suggest changing nothing more than a 10-year “tradition.”

Please.

May 23, 2005 - 8:35 pm 14. richard mcenroe:

The Democrats will never honor this agreement; neither in letter nor spirit. The hallmark of the Democratic Party is that it doesn’t honor its deals.

May 23, 2005 - 8:35 pm 15. OJ:

It is clear to me that everyone wins in this compromise. Perhaps not in the way most people would think… Rarely is there a solution with three winners!

http://www.rightviews.com/article.php?id=309

http://www.RightViews.com

May 23, 2005 - 8:36 pm 16. chuck:

I haven’t a clue how the political game is played in the Senate, or much of anywhere else for that matter, so I will just watch and learn.

May 23, 2005 - 8:40 pm 17. Rick Ballard:

Hugh Hewitt advocates a contributions strike.

All of Powerline thinks the Reps got rolled.

The consensus on The Corner at NRO is that the Reps got rolled – scroll down to Neas press release in confirmation.

I’m keeping good company this evening. I still think getting rid of No Brain McCain might have been worth it.

May 23, 2005 - 8:49 pm 18. ed:

Hmmm.

I’m not a Republican anymore so this can be ignored if desired.

I’ve written before that this issue would not be allowed to be resolved. Simply put it has been a tremendous cash cow for the GOP and they want more of it for the 2006 election. As we’re discussing this I imagine that numerous requests for donations are winging their way through the internet and the postal system. All this is nothing less than a combined device by *both* Republicans and Democrats to ensure that there will be a useful funding issue for 2006.

But for conservatives this is just yet another example of how little we’re valued by the GOP.

In my honest opinion. They can go fuck themselves.

May 23, 2005 - 8:50 pm 19. Charlie (Colorado):

I think the moaning and grouching about the Republicans is misguided. Look at what the deal is:

- the Dems have agreed to pass through three people they said were completely unacceptable a few days ago. This is going to weaken their case for what’s unacceptable in the future.

- they have left the issue of the other two open … but they’ve set the bar pretty high for what is an acceptable filibuster. If the Dem leadership filibusters now, instead of allowing a vote, the R’s have an entire freezer full of red meat for the base, and a lot of room for “more in sorrow than in anger”.

- Similarly, if Scalia is nominated for Chief, and the D’s play the “extrodinary circumstances” card, the context becomes how the D’s violated their agreement; want to bet against a change in the rules then *and* a campaign point on the inability of the D’s to be trusted?

Don’t fall into the trap of thinking the battle is the war; this looks to me like it games out to either force the D’s to cut out the filibuster thing entirely, or enable the obstructionist meme to a degree that Harry Truman would have envied.

May 23, 2005 - 8:56 pm 20. ed:

Hmmm.

“Don’t fall into the trap of thinking the battle is the war; this looks to me like it games out to either force the D’s to cut out the filibuster thing entirely, or enable the obstructionist meme to a degree that Harry Truman would have envied.”

Don’t be absurd.

Scalia being appointed Chief Justice is meaningless. What is the issue is the fact that there are going to be two openings on the Supreme Court and now it is extremely likely that we’ll get another O’Connor.

The Democrats have given up NOTHING. Not a damn thing.

They agreed to allow three people whom THEY COULD NOT BLOCK! Do you REALLY think the Democrats would have blocked an African-American judge? REALLY? What the Democrats have done is clear the slate. They’ve been able to recover from an impossible position and now are able to regroup and reasses their strategy. Additionally the single biggest problem case, the African-American, is now gone from the table and won’t be used to beat them over the head.

I’m a conservative and I’m not going to participate in a party that doesn’t have a single cojone.

May 23, 2005 - 9:05 pm 21. thedragonflies:

If there is any hope to come from this compromise it is in the notion that raw hatred and bitterness has not won the day.

I think the Reps dodged a bullet by not going with what the MSM would call the Nuclear Option. And the Dems have dodged a bullet by not taking their ball and going home, pouting and holding their breath until they turn blue.

If the moderate Dems break their agreement and go along with a filibuster on a nominee that does not meet the “extraordinary” category (as Byrd will try to do), they lose thier pretense of moral superiority, and the Dems are seen for what they are – obstructionists, poor sports, untrustworthy, and hypocrites.

If they keep to their word, and refuse to play the filibuster game, the country wins big, and Bush succeeds in his nominations to the Appelate and Supreme Courts

May 23, 2005 - 9:05 pm 22. Buddy Larsen:

Yeh…the red-button was already on TV and woe to whoever pushed the “nuclear option” and “ended American government as we know it”. Repubs less got rolled than tossed in the briar patch.

May 23, 2005 - 9:06 pm 23. jedrury:

Interesting jib jab.

Don’t be so quick to say that this is a apparent win for the Democrats; seven of them now find themselves under “an extraordinary circumstances” standard for future opposition and meeting that test may prove difficult when it comes to a nominee for the Supreme Court.

May 23, 2005 - 9:07 pm 24. Rick Ballard:

If it games out that way, Charlie, then fine. But if the Senate clowns have miscalculated – and I think they have – very badly – then turnout in ‘06 will cost the Reps House seats. Probably not the majority but I’ll guarantee you that there are 19 Republican Representatives who are alternating between cursing McCain and a few others and feeling very queasy to night. Look at the difference in turnout between ‘84 and ‘88 for an idea of what happens when the conservatives sit on their hands. Bush I was elected with seven million fewer votes than Reagan had in ‘84.

Checkbooks are closing accross America tonight.

May 23, 2005 - 9:11 pm 25. Buddy Larsen:

Ed, frustration is understandable because meeting a bad idea halfway makes it only halfbad and cancels the shot at good. But keep in mind the relative sophistication of the two constituencies. Keep in mind the recent prez camopaign–how many different people did you hear say “he rushed to war with plan to win the peace”, “his go-it-alone foreign policy” blah blah blah…that simplified crap is so bizarrely far from truth but it works by simplicity and repetition–as you know. It’s the coin of the MSM, and a large volume (47% ?) of news “truth” organizes around it yet. This deal unloads their guns, and puts the monkey on the Dem’s back. That “majority-party bully” theme was going to hurt, vote-wise, lie or not. And Lord knows what the left propaganda machine was gonna be able to do with an applied “nuclear option” later when the SCOTUS slots open.

May 23, 2005 - 9:20 pm 26. ed:

Hmmmm.

@ Buddy Larsen

I’d believe your position except for one small detail:

Show me where Senate Republicans rolled the Democrats.

ever.

May 23, 2005 - 9:23 pm 27. Sandy P:

Via polipundit:

Democratic officials said an unwritten aspect of the pact is that two nominees not named in the deal – Brett Kavanaugh and William J. Haynes – would not be confirmed and would be turned aside either at the committee level or on the floor.î

via NR

We got 3 out of 7, whoopee.

We had 5.

May 23, 2005 - 9:24 pm 28. BurbankErnie:

I think what everyone is taking for granted is that the Seven Mavericks will vote to approve the Judicial Nominees. I have not heard or read where they stand, and could very easily see them voting against Brown, Owen, et. al to show how centrist they all are. This is not over.

May 23, 2005 - 9:26 pm 29. Buddy Larsen:

Rick, the last few conservative boycotts have been pretty disastrous you must admit. Remember 43% Bill in ‘92.

May 23, 2005 - 9:27 pm 30. chuck:

Well, here is a selection of quotes from Sun Tzu. There is plenty to support all sides of the argument. The oracle is her enigmatic self. Bon appetit

May 23, 2005 - 9:30 pm 31. ed:

Hmmm.

“This is not over.”

This is completely over and the Democrats have won completely.

The issue isn’t an appeals court position. It’s the Supreme Court. What this agreement does is put the onus onto the Republicans and takes it off the Democrats.

And did anyone notice the “109th Congress”? Do I need to spell it out?

May 23, 2005 - 9:31 pm 32. Buddy Larsen:

ed, you have a point…it has to do with one side having to try to keep promises and the other side making a virtue of not.

May 23, 2005 - 9:31 pm 33. Buddy Larsen:

Chuck, #18 & #20, here.

May 23, 2005 - 9:35 pm 34. ed:

Hmmm.

Here’s the deal.

What this agreement does is prevent any rules change for the entirety of this sitting Congress. Which means that no rules changes can occur until AFTER the 2006 elections AND the newly elected/re-elected Congress has seated in session. I.e. the Democrats are free to filibuster UNTIL AFTER the 2006 elections AND when the new Congress get’s seated, and only because then the agreement evaporates and the Democrats REGAIN the right to filibuster.

Got it? The Democrats are free to filibuster until the agreement ends, in which case they are then free to filibuster.

This is a win for Republicans?

May 23, 2005 - 9:36 pm 35. Dale Gribble:

McPain will run for president, the question is, which party? He would be a creditable challenger to Hillary as centrists try to regain control of their party. McPain is finished in the republican party, especially as more people realize that the campaign finance reform bill was purchased by George Soros. This could be a great move by the senator from AZ.

May 23, 2005 - 9:39 pm 36. Rick Ballard:

Buddy,

I’m not calling for a voting boycott at all. I was pointing out that the conservative vote is volatile and that letting the little herd of RINOs play boss without suffering any consequences is bad medicine. If the NRSC makes it quietly known that Chafee, Snowe and DeWine are on their own then I believe that conservatives in general would be satisfied.

Like I said – the political suicide of McCain is a silver lining and letting Linsey Graham put his aspirations in the dumpster isn’t bad either.

I won’t be staying home and I wouldn’t encourage anyone else to. I’m just on strike regarding donations until I hear of disciplinary measures being taken.

May 23, 2005 - 9:39 pm 37. Buddy Larsen:

It’s enigmatic. Comity carried, but only by the threat of smashmouth media. Most voters were never going to sort out the fine points of senate ethics, which did indeed all favor the Repubs. But, so what? If senate insurgents can’t be perp-walked on camera to a dunce stool somewhere, who’ll ever know?

May 23, 2005 - 9:41 pm 38. Rick Ballard:

Buddy,

The other thing about ‘92 is that Bush I let a slightly different group of RINOs convince him that rolling over and letting George Mitchell scratch his tummy on taxes wouldn’t hurt. After all, who in the dumb electorate would remember “No new Taxes!

May 23, 2005 - 9:46 pm 39. Buddy Larsen:

But I do agree with the batting order changes–the RINOs messed this up in the front end, and have made no friends. I’m starting to like George Allen. McCain is McCain, the MSM perfect conservative.

May 23, 2005 - 9:46 pm 40. Buddy Larsen:

Rick, re George Mitchell…point taken. He’s still the “I cannot not tell a lie” modern Dem senate model. Despite his mini-me Daschle getting the boot.

May 23, 2005 - 9:50 pm 41. Chris L.:

The way I read it, since these 14 Senators believe that the President should consult with members of both parties before even submitting a nomination, I can see a Dem arguing that failure to do so constitutes “extraordinary circumstances.” That effectively binds the President to something he never agreed to.

For these 14, I think the “us v. them” was seen not as Republican v. Democrat, but the Legislative v. Executive branches — and they stuck it to the Executive but good. They not only force the President to give the Senate a key role prior to even submitting a nominee, but they reaffirm their independence to decide their position irrespective of party lines (or the President’s wishes). This is, I think, the issue on which they found common ground.

May 23, 2005 - 9:50 pm 42. Buddy Larsen:

Nah, this is too volatile an atmosphere to try to guide the nuclear option missile. too many other unrelated fish a-fryin’ to open the door to a demagogic crusade from the left. I think we dodged a bullet, I can see it going to the mat and us wailing and gnashing for years over the results. The war trumps everything, and the left connects every issue to it.

May 23, 2005 - 9:56 pm 43. ed:

Hmmm.

With this agreement the Republicans have given away two prospective Supreme Court nominations. The 110th Congress won’t get seated until January of 2007. And the 2008 Presidential election run will start very early that year. President Bush will have, at most, a 2-3 month window to successfuly nominate two Supreme Court justices. If the process takes any longer, then the Democrats can successfully argue that the decision should belong to the next sitting President.

This is just completely f-d up. There is no way two Supreme Court nominations are going to happen in an election year, particularly with the 2004 election as an example when campaigning started so early. In order to even get one done Bush will have to cave completely and send a “moderate”, i.e. liberal but slightly less flaming, to the bench or face having Hillary apppoint two Supremes.

I’m going to be frigging sick.

May 23, 2005 - 10:00 pm 44. Buddy Larsen:

ed, don’t get sick, the 109th has over a year left, it’s early in the game. Bush will get two–these guys talk in the hallways. there’s a plan. I hope.

May 23, 2005 - 10:04 pm 45. Pat Curley:

Although I generally concur with those who are skeptical of the Democrats living up to their promises, in this case it’s not the Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy Democrats, it’s the Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson Democrats.

It becomes hard for them to filibuster Owen or Rogers-Brown for the Supreme Court if they become nominees. I’m willing to see what happens, although I do feel a little burned on the two judges who have (apparently) been tossed aside.

It’s an interesting concept, the idea of a small group of centrists effectively striking a deal.

May 23, 2005 - 10:13 pm 46. Buddy Larsen:

Rick, I know I’m being a bore, but, remember Newt in ‘94? Every single fact, every tradition, all the honor positions of ethical righteousness in his favor–but somehow come election day, the GOP had “Shut Down the Government!”

May 23, 2005 - 10:19 pm 47. Buddy Larsen:

that’s ‘95 of course.

May 23, 2005 - 10:20 pm 48. flenser:

A significant defeat for the GOP. I suppose we have been on a roll and were due for a setback.

The likely result is more lefty’s on the SC, unless we double our bets and go for broke in ‘08.

Surely, Frist has to step down after this debacle.

May 23, 2005 - 10:27 pm 49. Sandy P:

Via Powerline:

Check out NRO’s Bench Memos for great coverage of the Deal. From my perspective, here are the two essential facts: (1) as virtually every Republican involved stressed, thr Deal makes sense for the Republicans only if the seven Democrats they worked with can be trusted to act in good faith on President Bush’s current and future nominees and (2)Robert Byrd is the leader of the seven Dems.

May 23, 2005 - 10:35 pm 50. Rick Ballard:

Buddy,

That’s interesting:

‘91 “Don’t Read My Lips” Bush I

‘93 “True Colors” Clinton attemps socialization

‘95 “I got the Power” by Newt

‘96 “What Intern?”

‘98 “If you could see what I saw, you’d impeach him too.” (Ford Office Building Evidence – with Lanny Davis helping smother – much like today) Lindsay Graham

Today – for No Brain I’d say it’s “The Day the Music Died” and I’d rank it on par with the others in terms of political gaffes.

May 23, 2005 - 10:43 pm 51. Patrick Tyson:

Off-Topic:

If yesterday wasn’t a fluke and San Antonio does try to beat Phoenix at their own game that series will more than make up for any deficiencies in what transpires between the Pistons and Shaquille O’Neal. And besides, the Angels shutout Garland and the White Sox tonight.

On-Topic:

I would have been surprised had there not been a deal once Senator Byrd decided to involve himself.

The issue came to a head, as great issues tend to, first in the United States Senate and then in the Supreme Court. The House passed a proviso prohibiting slavery in the territories taken from Mexico and made it apply to Texas, where many slave-owning Southerners had died in the cause of bringing their republic into the Union. The Senate defeated it. What had the Senate to offer on its own account? In the main it had the patriarchal figure of Henry Clay, a bony, awkward Virginian who had gone into Kentucky, become a successful lawyer, turned at twenty-two to politics and given fifty years of his life to a failing campaign to abolish slavery. In 1850 he stood on the Senate floor to make the last speech of his life. He was seventy-three, worn down to the bone and the dewlaps, and he was wracked with arthritis. He talked for two days, and he came up with a solution that fair-minded men, if they had been in a majority, might have accepted with good grace.

… The compromise was voted and grudgingly accepted by both sides.

Then there set in one of those terrifying, and rationally unaccountable, decades in American life when all the ingenuity, vigor, and hot blood of the country seem to concentrate into opposing channels of fear and self-righteousness. Of course, there were fair-minded men of considerable influence in every part of the country, but they retreated into the quiet desperation of hoping for the best. They were drowned in a boiling sea of rhetoric and provocation….

—Alstair Cooke

For some reason “And may all your Christmases be white” comes to mind. Must be what I’ve been reading lately.

May 23, 2005 - 10:48 pm 52. Patrick Tyson:

Then again, it may be Randy Newman’s Sigmund Freud’s Impersonation Of Albert Einstein In America:

America, America

Step out into the light

You’re the best dream man has ever dreamed

And may all your Christmases be white

Right!

May 23, 2005 - 10:54 pm 53. Buddy Larsen:

Both sides have been polling this thing hard, and there’s was just no market for a showdown, public disgust was in a nosedive as late as today. So they kicked the can down the road. Looks bad for GOP, but, with other issues, war, SocSec, tax reform, where only GOP is proactive, I don’t see where this sort of deal wasn’t sort of necessary. I can barely stomach the RINOs myself, but, jeez, GOP has to play the headline risks here. It’s just too hard–too chancey–to mass mkt the deeper story. And too, it’d be different with a less ambitious White House agenda.

May 23, 2005 - 10:55 pm 54. Fresh Air:

This was a clear tactical defeat for the GOP. Nonetheless those talking about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory need to face the simple truth: there weren’t 50 votes! If there had been, then it would be a different matter.

The bottom line is the GOP majority in the Senate is still held hostage by the milquetoasts from Maine, the moron from Rhode Island, and a few other namby-pambys from the swing states of Pennsylvania and Ohio, not to mention the two most egotistical war heroes in the upper chamber. So with that gang of cats, what makes you think herding is even a possibility?

Now then: Let’s look at the substance of the agreement. It immediately brings three nominees to the federal bench. (Good.) Two others are tossed over the side. (Bad.) Then the Senate goes back to doing nominee business as it had been before, only this time the Democrats can’t fillibuster unless an “extreme” circumstance comes up. Is this good or bad?

We’ve seen this film before; the Democrats think they’re all extreme. They cannot be trusted to act honorably, etc. All of which I agree with. However, I think the agreement may ultimately prove to be good, and here’s why I believe it:

The “extreme” clause sets up a two-way street. If the Democrats abuse “extreme” as an adjective, the Republicans can claim the agreement has been breached, and we return to the status of May 22. In other words, (and Charlie (Colo.) may have said this as well), all this agreement does is unstick the current three and put the Democrats on notice to play fair. In so doing, it sets up a much better future P.R. environment for the squishies, who could claim–if a Byrd option was then necessary–that they wanted to maintain Senate tradition, blah, blah, but just couldn’t in the face of this obstructionism. What the agreement really does is move the weenies closer to the barbeque.

This then will be the question: When it does ultimately become necessary to pull the trigger on the Byrd option, will the will to do it be weaker because the members don’t have faith in their leader, or stronger because the squishies have ample P.R. to cover their sweet hindquarters?

May 23, 2005 - 11:04 pm 55. Buddy Larsen:

Good stuff, Patrick. The Compromise of 1850…wish it taught the one lesson without also teaching the other. Good then, bad later. Hey…wait…there IS a lesson–people ought to to keep their word!

May 23, 2005 - 11:06 pm 56. Rick Ballard:

FA,

I’d agree except that I think NoBrain believes that he’s the squish team leader and will try and turn his little herd of RINOs into policy setters. He can lose one (Warner) and still have a stalling force. After he tossed in with Soros/Pew on the NoBrain-Feingold bit I wouldn’t trust him if I had him locked in a solid steel closet.

When rampaging egos have the Oval Office in what passses for their “mind” they are absolutely untrustworthy. He thinks he has a deal with the WH on an ‘I didn’t say what I really thought about you.’ basis and he needs to be disabused concerning the value of keeping his super-sized mouth shut during the campaign.

May 23, 2005 - 11:22 pm 57. Fresh Air:

Rick B.–

Yep. McCain’s a disaster alright. I had read he decided to bag the ‘08 run last year. So I’m not sure he plays to the GOP crowd anymore, if he ever really did. It’s all ego gratification now.

Having said that, McCain’s a pro-life conservative. Insofar as a fillibuster based upon a Roe litmus test is the most likely ideological fault line, he will get the chance to weight his own principles against the precepts of this risible MOU. In such a case, I’m not sure he would necessarily play ball in the way you might think.

We’ll see. But I agree: either way, his chance to be prez just floated away.

P.S. You don’t think the bastard would try to run as a third-party candidate, do you?

May 23, 2005 - 11:37 pm 58. someone:

“with other issues, war, SocSec, tax reform, where only GOP is proactive, I don’t see where this sort of deal wasn’t sort of necessary”

Buddy: I hope you agree that this — or rather the Supreme Court followup — is more important than all of the above except the war. And we’re not going to lose any war votes.

Tax bills come and go, but our judicial overlords threaten to be eternal.

May 24, 2005 - 12:22 am 59. Buddy Larsen:

Someone, w/ SCOTUS in your question,I do for sure agree. I just can’t help feeling like the left press was drooling to go biblical over the David & Goliath aspect–had we stood on precedent. This is what would’ve affected the war, easily conceivably. Besides, the deal as written up is limited to circuit court judges, is cancelable on an apprehension of bad faith, and now we can go straight to the energy bill.

May 24, 2005 - 5:36 am 60. Buddy Larsen:

Kavanaugh & Haynes may turn out to be the only victims. Don’t forget, the gang of 14 has to lean toward POTUS now.

May 24, 2005 - 5:40 am 61. ed:

Hmmmm.

“The “extreme” clause sets up a two-way street.”

I’d suggest reading it again. There is no breach clause. There is no void clause. In most contracts there are clauses that set forth how, and when, the contract can be terminated. I used to be a contract programmer and would sign these things all the time. In this contract there is only one single element that identifies when, and how, the contract is ended.

And that’s when the 109th Congress ends.

This contract cannot be ended at any other time or in any other way without a breach of this contract. What happens then is the Democrats get to use this damn thing like a club. Not only would the Republicans be “extremists” in upsetting the agreement, but they’ll also be in breach of the contract.

If you think this is a good deal, congratulations. You’ll continue thinking it until it blows up. But don’t forget this moment when two extreme leftists are appointed to the SCOTUS.

“We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.”

The Senate Democrats just made President Bush, their bitch.

May 24, 2005 - 5:45 am 62. ed:

Hmmm.

Read Beldar

A lawyer who deconstructs the contract.

It’s ugly.

May 24, 2005 - 5:46 am 63. Richard Nieporent:

I hope the Republicans enjoy the crumbs they got from the Democrats. I suggest that they savor every morsel because they are not going to get any more. All it takes is three of the seven Democrats to “vote their conscience” and the Republicans will lose a cloture vote 59-51.

May 24, 2005 - 6:01 am 64. Cecil Turner:

“I’d save the wrath for McCain – he let his Hindenberg ego guide him as always and he just followed it off a cliff.”

Look out, it’s a runaway metaphor! (I like it, though.)

The good news is that this is far less obnoxious than the earlier compromise proposal (which required the Administration withdraw two of the three nominations now agreed to, and a return to the “blue-slip” process). The bad news is that it legitimizes use of the filibuster on judicial nominees, which looks to me like an unconstitutional power shift.

However, this just delays the inevitable. There will be future fights over nominees (including one on Bolton in the very near future), at which point a bunch of senators will have to decide whether the agreement pertains, and then whether their conscience indicates it’s an “extraordinary circumstance[].” Any attempt to filibuster at that point could trigger claims of bad faith, cause abrogation of the agreement, and lead to the nuclear option.

Lest anyone see that as a positive, it’d have the effect of neutralizing McCain’s negatives (and in fact make him look like a genius). At that point his dirigible-sized aspirations could launch off a Painted Desert promontory into a nuclear election-year sunrise. And that’s a result the country could ill afford.

May 24, 2005 - 6:23 am 65. Buddy Larsen:

All these problems could be true–the arrogation of power to a de-facto privy council of 14 is bad, and just further illustrates the problem with the new-world-every-day Dems. However, having made themselves that 109th congress privy council for the circuit court, now they have to act like one on senate biz in toto. If POTUS can capitalize this–bully pulpit–maybe it can pay off in further business. I guess the point I’m trying to make is there is a way this can work for the country’s business, but it takes some optimism and confidence. There was always going to be a train wreck over SCOTUS, maybe it can be better-framed now. The Barons having forced King John to Runnymede–or something like that–they now can’t revolt so easily when the real judicial battle begins soon.

May 24, 2005 - 6:41 am 66. Charlie (Colorado):

“They agreed to allow three people whom THEY COULD NOT BLOCK! Do you REALLY think the Democrats would have blocked an African-American judge? REALLY?”

Ed, did you ever hear the joke about the guy who calls his lawyer, and the lawyer assures him “Don’t worry, they can’t put you in jail for that,” amd the guy answer, “but counsellor, I’m calling from the jail.”

This argument would be a helluva lot more compelling if they hadn’t already blocked Janice Brown for several years.

May 24, 2005 - 6:52 am 67. Charlie (Colorado):

What this agreement does is prevent any rules change for the entirety of this sitting Congress.

Ed, it rules out a rules change for the 109th Congress as long as the agreement holds.

One thing about it is that the language is such that it’s hard to tell what it means, which is why you have to game it out. But assuming that the Republicans never roll the Democrats seems to ignore the fact that Republicans keep winning things.

May 24, 2005 - 7:00 am 68. charlotte:

What is the WH reaction/ spin on this Grate Compromise, and what do the Ledeens think? Did Barbara send along an opinion with the memorandum?

May 24, 2005 - 7:12 am 69. ricpic:

You have to ask yourself: “What’s conservative about the Republican Party?”

May 24, 2005 - 7:25 am 70. Anthony (Los Angeles):

Sigh.

When the Republicans needed the equivalent of Lyndon Johnson as Majority Leader, they find themselves stuck with Jar-Jar Frist.

May 24, 2005 - 7:32 am 71. ed:

Hmmm.

@ Charlie.

“Ed, it rules out a rules change for the 109th Congress as long as the agreement holds.”

Sorry man but that doesn’t work. Read the agreement again. You’ll see that the agreement is extremely specific except when it comes to the definition of “extraordinary circumstances”. Which is left to each individual senator to define for himself. I.e. there is no objective test for “extraordinary circumstances”.

Look I can go through this endless times but the best explanation, by far, is from beldar. I posted the link, go read his work and then we can continue to discuss this.

The simple fact is that any reasonable contract has an exit clause. This one does NOT have an exit clause. This contract is binding until the 110th Congress is seated and there is no way to break it. There is no wiggle room. There is nothing in it whatsoever that is of benefit to the Republicans.

May 24, 2005 - 7:42 am 72. John Lynch:

madawaskan

Let the Dems win this battle but Republicans should focus on winning the war.

The war is the Senate seats that come open in 2006. Republicans threatening not one more dime are throwing support in effect to the Democrats-who would have been abysmal in reaction to 9/11.

The ‘war’ is not to win seats. The tens of millions of people, the tens of millions of dollars spent in campaigns; these are not about ’seats.’ These are about government. In this case the monies spent, the votes cast, the seats won – have delivered what? A caved in center just when we were about to get some part of what we had won: judicial nominations confirmed.

I need to be much more selective in whom I support. The dollars, time and energy go not to a party but to specific individuals that can deliver.

In the meantime, the party better come up with some good candidates.

May 24, 2005 - 7:44 am 73. David Thomson:

ìWhen the Republicans needed the equivalent of Lyndon Johnson as Majority Leader, they find themselves stuck with Jar-Jar Frist.î

Bill Frist just destroyed any chance of his successfully running for president. The man is simply not a leader. I predict a George Allen/Condi Rice ticket.

May 24, 2005 - 7:45 am 74. rgvdh:

thedragonflies sez:

“My first choice has always been the one advocated by Dick Morris, which is to change a different rule, get rid of the silent filibuster, and make the filibusterers stand a speak, endlessly, on cable TV, and be seen as tying up the Senate, day in and day out.”

Notice that the agreement does *not* rule that out! If the Democrats act in bad faith, the Republicans still have the option of making them do so on CSPAN.

May 24, 2005 - 7:46 am 75. richard mcenroe:

The problem is, the Republicans still think of the Senate as a men’s club. But not the stylish “Gilmore Girls” style of club, rather a grubby, insular little “Everybody Loves Raymond” lodge, where a pack of sweaty senior citizens cluster to take a schvitz and do a little business. Sure, they know Moishe is going to swap out the velvet for cheap Taiwan velour first chance he gets, and they know Vito is going to stiff them on the shipping like a damn pirate, but they can’t conceive of not doing business with each other, or even of trying to do business in a new way.

May 24, 2005 - 7:59 am 76. Fresh Air:

Ed–

When an MOU is breached by one side, it’s no longer binding on the other side. It’s that simple. There doesn’t have to be any “escape clause.” This is nothing more than a written “gentleman’s agreement.”

You are right that “extreme” is up for everyone to decide. But, frankly, it has been all along insofar as these weasels bought into the idea that any of the president’s nominees are extreme.

Once again, if the squishies weren’t going to vote with their party anyway, you haven’t lost that much. I think Charlie (Colo.) has it right. You have to run through the likely scenarios and predict the outcomes.

May 24, 2005 - 8:01 am 77. Buddy Larsen:

Beldar’s statement is strong but it’s a closing argument style affirmative advocacy of the proposition “This deal could turn out very badly”.

There is another case, which proceeds from the proposition “We had to get off the dime”.

The key to Ed & Beldar’s analysis is that the escape clause is activated by a ‘bad faith’ violation that isn’t spelled out. But that’s a two-edged sword, and all 100 senators know how to exploit vague wording.

May 24, 2005 - 8:03 am 78. ed:

Hmmm.

The problem is that in order to prove bad faith you must prove that the filibustering senator is lying because he doesn’t believe what he’s saying.

Which is the modern definition of a politician.

Frankly I’m pretty uncertain where and how y’all are finding these escape clauses. I certainly don’t see them.

As for the rest. I’d like everyone to envision, just for a moment, how such an ‘escape’ would play out on television.

May 24, 2005 - 8:13 am 79. Buddy Larsen:

That’s the whole point, Ed–that’s where we already were.

Now, the Dem’s most effective PR argument “We’ve approved 95% of the nominees, it’s THIS 5% that, as the 95% proves, is radical”.

That’s all gone now, and the ‘extreme circumstance’ is already being defined–without apparant gainsay–as criminal or pathological character faults on the part of the nominee in question.

The strong likelihood is that the nominees going forward will get the up or down vote that we wanted to begin with. Remember, the game is to get the up-or-down vote when SCOTUS comes up. Up or down votes, we win.

May 24, 2005 - 8:29 am 80. Fresh Air:

Ed–

See John Podhoretz in The Corner for another explication (CTRL-F and type his last name to locate his post), titled “Don’t turn victory into defeat.” I think it will help.

May 24, 2005 - 8:32 am 81. ed:

Hmmm.

“At 9:00 a.m.: Harry Reid just accidentally told the truth on the floor of the U.S. Senate. After saying that he supports the Memorandum of Agreement (the document supposedly calling the Dems on the carpet for routinely filibustering judicial nominees), he said, “Every filibuster is extraordinary.” Yes, read that direct quote to yourself again, then look at the document. The Democratic Leader believes that the Democratic signers of the MOA have grounds to filibuster every previously filibustered nominee (except, presumably, Pryor, Owen, and Brown).”

Victory is sweet. Give me a ring when that happens.

Thanks.

May 24, 2005 - 8:35 am 82. Fresh Air:

Ed–

You are correct that Harry is a snake, as are numerous other solons from the left side of the aisle. But…

It really doesn’t matter what Harry and Bill say on this; they aren’t parties to the agreement.

May 24, 2005 - 8:38 am 83. madawaskan:

This will be a loss -perhaps- if the Social Conservaitves react to it that way. But Social Conservatives make up less than 12% of the population [if memory serves me right] according to the latest Pew Research.

Basically you all want to attack the likes of the Republican leadership-Frist and Santorum for carrying your water. Maybe Social Conservatives should have been dumped after the New Hampshire primary when Buchanan all but did in the elder Bush.

Here is a simple reality of American politics- basically you have the choice between two separate works of “art” to be put in your home. If you complain to much about one piece by default you automatically will receive the other.[-kinda like a book club.]

Given the bigger picture and the reaction to 9/11 one piece is a Michelangelo and the other is cow dung shaped to resemble Michael Moore and is shellacked with fermented goat’s milk.

Conservatives blowing this out of proportion are complaining about dust on a relative masterpiece.

I am telling you the cow dung piece will turn into a methane cloud once it is ensconced in your home.

What really should happen is that Republicans try to win over the growth industry Catholic vote and perhaps soften on the death penalty and other social issues.

That is the message that the Republicans should perceive that the Social Conservative Evangelical base is sending.

Threatening to “sit it out”… then why should your demands be considered anymore?

Rick Ballard I do agree with hitting some of the seven. Actually the Maine girls I would spare because one of them is honest and the other one plays a hard game and is more conservative than she appears.

McCain given his war-hero,media darling status is an almost invincible viper and it is my nightmare that he somehow enables a Hillary Clinton Presidency.

[I say this as a right-wing feminist. Four years of her will ruin a female's chance at the Presidency for many more years than necessary.]

May 24, 2005 - 8:43 am 84. Buddy Larsen:

Ed, there’s nothing to prevent ‘bad faith’ being broadened to the agreement itself–it need not become the unlikely ad hominum which you rightly fear may be an unuseable weapon.

If a nominee can’t get to the floor, and there’s no evidence of poor character, then we can hold the agreement violated.

What’ll play out on TV is some Dem trying to sell the nominee’s ‘poor character’. They got away with that in the big herd scene that ended yesterday–it won’t be so easy in the future.

May 24, 2005 - 8:44 am 85. ed:

Hmmm.

1. I’m a FISCAL conservative, not a SOCIAL conservative. It would be nice if people remembered that.

2. I’m not “sitting out”. I’m not a Republican anymore so what you goofy GOPpers do is entirely your business.

3. “Frist and Santorum for carrying your water”

What *water* exactly? What *exactly* have I, a FISCAL conservative, gotten? The passage of the biggest single new entitlement in 50 years? That’s sure is some serious water carrying.

I am sooooo hydrated.

You go ahead and feel happy about this. But when this whole deal blows up I’ll be back here to drive it right into your faces. Most people would be pleasant and polite and not mention such things. Fortunately I’m something of a real bastard so I very much enjoy pointing out situations where I can do a repeated “told you so”.

Ahhhh. Anticipation!

May 24, 2005 - 8:49 am 86. ed:

Hmmm.

“If a nominee can’t get to the floor, and there’s no evidence of poor character, then we can hold the agreement violated.”

No. You. Cannot.

There is no “character” test in the agreement. So you’re reading things into the agreement that are entirely not there.

Sorry man.

May 24, 2005 - 8:50 am 87. Rick Ballard:

“You don’t think the bastard would try to run as a third-party candidate, do you?”

I think that the fearless leader of the Magnificent Seven Squisherai will do whatever the little voices that he hears all the time tell him to do. There is nothing too far beneath him – nothing at all. He’s just an unbounded ego – read Dr. Sanity’s piece on Narcissism – Sen. NoBrain’s picture belongs at the top of it.

I still go with Beldar’s and ed’s position on the legal meaning of the document. Of course, when it’s broken – and it will be broken – trial will be held in the court of public opinion with the MSM acting as prosecutors in chief. I don’t know which of the Seven Squisherai will break first but I’l be applauding as their name is dragged through mud.

Cecil,

I’ve filed the Painted Desert dirigible for future use. I steal only the best. As you can see, I’ve flipped the metaphor mixer switch to high this morning.

May 24, 2005 - 8:51 am 88. Buddy Larsen:

Ach, Ed, take a chill pill. the ‘character’ isn’t in the agreement per se but it’s entirely implicit. What else would possibly fit the space? It need not be spelled out in a senate ‘deal memo’; it’s not a criminal or contract law that was sloppily passed, it’s a memo of understanding. each side ‘understands’ so and so. The talking heads are all over TV as we speak building guardrails on the cliffsides, deflating dirigibles, and sanding the paint off the desert.

May 24, 2005 - 9:03 am 89. Fresh Air:

Rick–

You’re a 24-carat train wreck.

May 24, 2005 - 9:04 am 90. flenser:

mad

That seems a rather perverse assessment. The ìmoderateî conservatives do what they are so good at, screw over their own party for their own gain, and you think the solution is to expel the social conservatives? I must be missing something, please elaborate on this.

Ed

The agreement means whatever the people who made it says it means. Granted that any action to make a rule change will now be more difficult, but this agreement is not some legally binding contract.

May 24, 2005 - 9:04 am 91. Fresh Air:

Buddy–

The more I think about this, the less it means. Both sides still must prove their cases in the court of public opinion.

Also, everyone should keep in mind there are only seven squishies who signed on. It’s conceivable there are several cowards who would have voted against cloture but didn’t have the stones to sign up for the Federalist 10-style hijacking agreement.

May 24, 2005 - 9:07 am 92. Norman Rogers:

Everyone, take a deep breath.

Ok?

I read this agreement as a complete cave by the Democrats and a complete win by the Republicans. Let me explain.

1. Forget parsing the agreement as if you were going to litigate over it. That’s not what this is about. The Democrats would not have come to the table if Frist didn’t have the votes. This piece of paper is meant to give the Democrats something to wave over their heads and cry, “Peace with Honor”.

2. Play out the scenarios.

a. Pryor, Owen, and Brown get quick confirmations, per this agreement.

b. Frist brings up Saad, Griffin, Neilson, and McKeague — one by one. Will the Democrats fillibuster them? Of cours not — at least not to the point of winning a cloture vote. Indeed, today’s WSJ quotes Reid as predicting, “that all would be easily approved.” The Democrats cannot do elsewise, lest they call into question their good faith (they can hardly call the remaining four, extremists, having watched the first three sail to easy confirmations).

c. Bolton gets his up or down vote (and wins, with some Democrats voting, AYE). Again, the Democrats dare not fillibuster.

d. Bush picks his first Supreme Court nominee from someone who has been previously confirmed by the Senate (like one of these first three — probably Brown). Again, no chance of a fillibuster because all have agreed they’re not “too extreme”.

Remember, this agreement is a political document, not a legal one. If the Democrats misbehave, Frist will call them on it and the drama will play out again on the public stage. A fillibuster will invite a cloture vote. Three of the four Republicans will feel pressure to make a finding of fact that the Democrats have not acted in good faith. Hence, they would be obliged to vote AYE for the Nuclear option.

What fun!

May 24, 2005 - 9:13 am 93. Buddy Larsen:

Sen Thune the Tom-Slayer was just on Fox rather coldly warning how harshly any ideologically-based SCOTUS nominee character-assassination will be treated going forward. IOW, the nuclear option has–due to the MOS–now sorta cleared the ‘reaction’ hurdle.

May 24, 2005 - 9:17 am 94. Buddy Larsen:

Sorry, Rick, didn’t mean to give you “Little Boy” running the 110 meter high hurdles.

May 24, 2005 - 9:18 am 95. madawaskan:

Ed-

As a fiscal Conservative-your buggered both ways not my fault.

flenser-

You know the social Conservative Evangelicals at Polipundit-

You are the ones opting out when you make the threats. It is your choice?

May I ask a big picture question- just what do you think you would automatically achieve with these appointments?

Is it really worth appointing Democrats the new Czars of the war on Terror?

If you liked the way they handled 9/11 when can I deliver the cow dung Michael Moore to your house?

By choosing not to chose you let others chose for you and hey I’m not even pro-choice.

Arghhh!

May 24, 2005 - 9:21 am 96. madawaskan:

Norman Rogers-

You have to wonder if Bolton wasn’t somehow negotiated through on this mess.

I am going to be watching Susan Collins-if she jumps ship on that vote-that will really signal a tide change.

May 24, 2005 - 9:26 am 97. flenser:

mad

Are you Carol Herman? That was unintelligible.

What threats am I making, and how does punishing the “evangelicals” for the sins of the “moderates” get us anywhere worthwhile? It’s not that complicated a question.

May 24, 2005 - 9:28 am 98. ed:

Hmmm.

“As a fiscal Conservative-your buggered both ways not my fault.”

You got that right.

May 24, 2005 - 9:31 am 99. flenser:

On closer examination, definitely Carol. The bizarre analogies and obsession with “evangelicals” fit her MO. Has anyone told her I’m not religious?

May 24, 2005 - 9:37 am 100. madawaskan:

Ed-

Sorry…I don’t know what I would do if I were you-flip a coin, close my eyes and hit the voting booth or try to decide which party lies the least.

That is one tall order…

Oh flenser

-quit playing games…you know all the not one more dime threats from some popular bloggers. Plus the commenters saying they will stay home. In particular the ones that want Santorum to pay for Specter being arrogant.Please.

May 24, 2005 - 9:40 am 101. Fresh Air:

Flenser–

Carol_Herman lives!:

Please-quit playing games. I stand revealed as the light, truth. No MATTER WHAT the consequences to YOU might be. You are in thrall to a lunatic lynch mob…And you KNOW IT. I am (mad) Carol!!!!Please.

May 24, 2005 - 9:48 am 102. flenser:

Oh, “maddy”, you wit you!

What objection do you have to the “not one dime” bloggers? Is it something you can articulate, or shall everyone try to guess?

I’m willing to let bygones be bygones. You can start over here with a new name, as long as you are willing to engage people in sensible debate. Did you read charlies comments to you?

May 24, 2005 - 9:51 am 103. John Lynch:

Hmm. There seems to be a number of ‘operatives’ on the political blogs today. Most are trying to play the ‘its a good deal’ tune.

Mad,

I don’t see a trade necessary here. Because the Dems can’t do war -> we can’t allow dems -> we should allow moderate repubs to cave on majority -> we give up on judicial nominees. This is not a string of logic that is either necessary or logical.

The same values that determined that we should take the battle to the terrorists are in play here. The courts are supposed to follow the law as written by legislature (the people,) and not legislate from the bench. The nominations and confirmations are important and not to be traded away for some sort of collegial comity.

This is not extremist, far-right, social- or fiscal- conservative; it is mainstream republican – or better be.

May 24, 2005 - 10:08 am 104. Rick Ballard:

FA,

This could turn out nicely if O’Connor follows Rehnquist out the door quickly and W moves Scalia or Thomas (my preference) to Chief and puts up Pryor and Gonzales (I would prefer Estrada, but I don’t think that’s possible).

The Seven Squisherai would be placed in a position where they would be wriggling like little worms if the Dems filibustered any of those choices. Pryor on the court would be great and Gonzales would probably be no worse than O’Connor has become. Conservatives would be pleased to have Scalia/Thomas as Chief with Pryor as a new associate and no one can accuse Gonzales of being anything but a wishywashy moderate.

All in all, it wouldn’t be a bad final outcome.

May 24, 2005 - 10:16 am 105. flenser:

There is some confusion over what is at stake in the battle over judges, with many insisting that it all comes down to religion and abortion.

Not that those are unworthy issues, but there is a great deal more at stake, including matters that should greatly concern the fiscal conservatives.

For some background on what plans the Democrats have for the courts, and why they are so desperate to deny Bush his judges, have a look at this by John Hinderaker.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/504hndlw.asp

May 24, 2005 - 10:35 am 106. Ryke:

Ed said:

Sorry man but that doesn’t work. Read the agreement again. You’ll see that the agreement is extremely specific except when it comes to the definition of “extraordinary circumstances”. Which is left to each individual senator to define for himself. I.e. there is no objective test for “extraordinary circumstances”.

Actually, the fact that there is no “objective test” is largely irrelevant.

There is a far more important standardized test for the definition of “extraordinary circumstances”: The American electorate. This is what many have been trying to point out. It does us little good in fighting this battle when there is still more than a year till election day.

As many have cautioned, this is not over. “Don’t confuse the battle for the war.”

We’re not talking about trifles with 2 or 3 Judicial nominees. As Bush might say, that’s small-ball.

What we have our eye on is a complete sea-change (or vindication) in the American political landscape; a shift in the entire Cultural War. The Election of 2004 was a victory, but as any dispassionate observer could see, it was never close to dramatic, let alone decisive.

The Liberals openly attempted to overide majority rule with Judicial fiat in the last election. The key is whether or not the American People connect the Democratic filibuster on Judges with the Judicial activism on Marraige and Homosexuality; whether they perceive it as an arrogant and over-reaching grab for power, or as a legitimate tool for protecting minority power.

If they choose the former – and if the Dems can be drawn into using their filibuster when they have to face opening polls – then we will achieve a greater victory than anything isolated to Judicial Nominations. If they don’t, then the American People will have spoken, and we must be content, if not satisfied. Either way, this scenario (if the Reps choose to take it) depends on the exercise of the American People’s will. And when you come right down to it, that’s what this is all about.

May 24, 2005 - 10:39 am 107. Fresh Air:

Rick–

Good points. The SCOTUS is where the action will be, and there are at least two moderate/liberal justices who have tired of legislating from the bench and now yearn to fish and needlepoint.

As I’ve been saying, this agreement moves the weenies closer to the fire. They have delicate constitutions, and have to get acclimated to the higher temperature before they can be grilled. Acting like a conservative is like putting ketchup on a hot dog to these people, and they risk alienating their fellow squishees at the Bangor Oyster Club of Rockefeller Republicans.

It’s really that simple. The deal is a loss from a “what might have been” standpoint, but could be a decisive win from a “what is possible” standpoint. We’ll see.

I think everyone can stand down from their suicide watches.

May 24, 2005 - 10:45 am 108. charlotte:

…there are at least two moderate/liberal justices who have tired of legislating from the bench and now yearn to fish and needlepoint

Fresh Air, No doubt O’Connor enjoys fly-fishing like every female exec these days, but who knew Rehnquist does needlepoint??

May 24, 2005 - 11:08 am 109. Buddy Larsen:

Yeah, fresh air, norman mailer says that was a very seggzist remark.

May 24, 2005 - 11:20 am 110. John Lynch:

Small ball?

I don’t think so. These nominees, or rather their confirmations, tipped the scales in four different appellate courts. The SCOTUS is important, but the appellate courts are by far where most cases are decided. The SC only hears about 80 cases a year; the appellates about 1200. In most of the appellates, the balance has not been favorable to following the laws as written, but only off by one judge. In my area, the 6th, we would have had, with the confirmation of Saad, a court with more judicial restraint.

Lifetime appointments of Judiciary is not small ball. The so-called repudiation of liberal thought is not real, and cannot last. These appointments will last much longer than any sort of repudiation.

We need to keep our eyes on the goal, not on some sort of illusive seat count, but on substantive changes in government. Elections count, seats matter, but government is what this is all about.

May 24, 2005 - 11:26 am 111. Buddy Larsen:

Right…Rome wasn’t built in a day, as they say–nor destroyed in a day, either. If we can fire Big Brother (and not just that he’s big, but that he’s big and stupid, too) with two steps forward and one step back, that beats the hell out of fighting another gunpowder civil war in about 20 years.

May 24, 2005 - 11:46 am 112. Fresh Air:

Charlotte–

By needlepoint, I was referring to John Paul Stevens. I understand, though, that Justice Rehnquist plays a mean game of whist.

May 24, 2005 - 12:29 pm 113. madawaskan:

John Lynch-

All forms of government derive their legitimacy from their ability to protect the existance of that form of government.

I see 9/11 as a more immediate threat to that then I do some two step backwards loss of ground in the judicial nominee process.

Examine Maine for a minute. In particular-the nomination process for Judges to the First Circuit. After the Bork fallout there were perhaps some compromise appointments supported by William Cohen.

William Cohen is a Republican that happened to be mentored by some rather conservative Democrats-Muskie and Mitchell.[great senator not such a great secretary of defense]

When the First Circuit ruled on whether or not the Bush administration could legally prosecute the war in Iraq-of primary importance- the three judges not known as extreme Federalists, or strict-contructionists came to the proper conclusion and sent Jesse Jackson and his fellow anti-war Senators and members of the House packing.

Plus as a military dependent who had to watch the Democrats in Florida challenge the vote of my husband’s fellow airmen who where stationed overseas and attempting to vote by absentee ballot I will not give the democrats any quarter.

Anyone who is prioritizing this supposed “loss” over the war effort is doing just that and I am rising to the level of holding them in almost as much contempt as I do the Democrats.

My husband spent Christmas in the Middle East.

May 24, 2005 - 1:07 pm 114. Kevin P:

Roger:

The worst aspect of the deal is the consultation clause. Now President Bush has to get approval from both the moderate republicans and Harry Reid. If he goes to Reid and of course Reid will say no and then follow up with a press conferance saying that Bush is unreasonable and he has no choice but to fillibuster. The McCain will step up and plead with Bush not to upset the Senate Peace Plan and send us to the “brink” again.”Can’t we all just get along?” Thus the agreement becomes more important then whether the judges are qualified or not. McCain will be able to hide the fact that he wants to vote Bush’s judges down behind the canard of keeping the peace. This allows the Senate Minority democrats a veto that the constitution never intended them to have.

I think McCain has other reasons for wanting this agreement. His pride and joy is the McCain Feingold law. Of course it is in shambles and the only way it will ever get fixed is to get judges on the Supreme Court that will allow McCain to restrict free speech with creative interpratations of the constitution. McCain knows that if Bush gets his choice on the SCOTUS he will never be able to add the resrictions that he needs to complete his vision of campaign financing.

May 24, 2005 - 1:16 pm 115. charlotte:

I was referring to John Paul Stevens

Right you are, Fresh Air! Now that I actually read your whole sentence, you clearly said “moderate/liberal”. It helps to clean off the screen and rub my eyes once in a while.

Anyone who is prioritizing this supposed “loss” over the war effort…

How is the war effort affected by a stance either way on this issue?

May 24, 2005 - 1:20 pm 116. flenser:

maddy

Most people here see the war is being multi-faceted. The work our soldiers are doing in the Middle East is invaluable, but is only one front in the overall war. For example, most here believe that the UN is desperately in need of oversight and reform. To that end, we support John Boltonís nomination, and the congressional investigations into Oil For Food. Do you regard these as also being unnecessary diversions?

The media are a front in this war, and the blogs are trying to hold them accountable for their behavior. Is this a waste of resources in your view?

Most of what Congress does each day has nothing to do with the war. Do you believe that they should put all other matters on hold, until some point where we can declare the war over?

May 24, 2005 - 1:36 pm 117. Terrye:

I have not got the time or the energy or the patience to read all these posts but I do not see this as a big defeat for the GOP.

This is a draw.

Most people thought the Republicans were acting like bullies anyway and the approval rating for Congress was a lousy 33%. If the GOP had pushed this and Congress had shut down the Republicans might well have paid a price in 2006. Is this worth losing the majority?

If the Dems do renig on the the deal then the Republicans will be in a far better position to do something radical.

I know many partisans do not like it but I agree with what Charlie said awhile ago.

Right now Repbulicans need to realize that there are a lot of folks out there that are starting to wonder if they should even be running the Senate at all, much less nuking people…sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

I say, wait and see and if the Dems try to filibuster later because a conservative president actaully nominates a conservative judge then go after them.

May 24, 2005 - 1:37 pm 118. Terrye:

Kevin:

The president does not have to consult with anyone.

He did not sign anything, the constitution decides his role, not this agreement.

They can ask the president to consult, whehter or not he does is up to him.

May 24, 2005 - 1:47 pm 119. Buddy Larsen:

Charlotte, think “feeding frenzy”. Dems get a big victory anywhere, the Doom Machine comes to life. Probing starts up everywhere. Star Wars means the end of the American Restoration.

May 24, 2005 - 1:51 pm 120. ed:

Hmmmm.

“The president does not have to consult with anyone.

He did not sign anything, the constitution decides his role, not this agreement.

They can ask the president to consult, whehter or not he does is up to him.”

The alternative to the President submitting a list and allowing the Democrats, along with the Renegades, to pick and choose is to not submit *any* judicial nominations at all or rely on recess appointments. That’s pretty much it. Well unless the President sues the Senate for Constitutional violations. With 14 votes, or rather 7 Republican votes, locked up, there’s not much the President can do.

Either Bush plays ball, and submits flaming goddman leftists for judicial nominations or else he doesn’t get to submit any.

This is what comes of being overly bi-partisan. Bush has nominated about 200+ judges. Of which less than 10, sorry 7, whoops 5, oops 3, are remotely conservative. Want to guess how many were liberals?

A shitload more than 3.

May 24, 2005 - 2:03 pm 121. ed:

Hmmm.

Democrats got more out of this Republican congress than conservatives have.

Joy.

May 24, 2005 - 2:04 pm 122. madawaskan:

flenser

I am a huge backer of Bolton that is an extension of our political/war effort and Clausewitz 101.

May 24, 2005 - 2:21 pm 123. Kevin P:

Terrye:

You are correct that President Bush has no legal need to consult with the congress. But if the gang of 7 hold and allow the Dems to fillibuster then Bush can nominate whoever he wants but they will never get a vote. McCain , along with the Press, will not discuss the merits of the judge but they will drone on how Bush is breaking the peace.The discussion of violating the agreement will take center stage with McCain leading the whine fest on the Sunday shows. They will ignore the dems historic abuse of the fillibuster and talk about how divisive the President is and why he just can’t sit down with McCain and Reid and come to a reasonable compromise.This hurts the power of the Presidency to announce the candidate for the court and argue the merits of the judge and instead the focus will be on the agreement and McCains noble attempts to achieve comity in the Senate. And instead of having to vote against the President in public McCain gets to do it behind closed doors.

May 24, 2005 - 2:33 pm 124. flenser:

maddy

You have an amazing knack for not answering questions. Or answering only those you chose.

ed

You make John Derbyshire seem downright pollyannaish. Courage!!

Am I the only one who finds it funny to watch each side insist that “We were screwed. This deal was terrible for us.”? Unfortunately the Republicans will probably finally manage to persuade people on this. You are in a hole guys, stop digging.

May 24, 2005 - 2:44 pm 125. Terrye:

Kevin:

I just heard Senator Huntchinson [R. TX] on Fox say that the constitutional option is still alive and can be used in the future.

It would seem to me that if the Dems let Owens go by then it will be harder for them to claim extraordinary circumstances down the road. If they try I think the GOP will be in a better position to employ this tactic than they are right now.

I think the president’s nominees should get an up or down vote, but I do know that not all of Clinton’s people got out of committee. So there is a history here.

How can people be sure that all the Republicans would vote for all the nominees anyway? If the moderates would go for this agreement it could be they would not all vote party line anyway. Today 18 Dems voted against cloture on this vote. So it seems they were not all happy either.

Hell, I am no expert but the support for the war is down and so is support for social security. If Republicans allow the Senate to meltdown they could lose their majority and then what good would this do them right now?

May 24, 2005 - 2:57 pm 126. Terrye:

ed:

Flaming leftists? That is extreme.

Scalia and Rehnquist are not leftists and Democrats voted for them both.

May 24, 2005 - 3:03 pm 127. erp:

Kevin P – In their dreams will Bush consult with the Dems when he picks his nominees. He doesn’t take orders from the senate.

The advise in the senate’s “Advise & Consent” refers to the debate once the nominations are sent to them.

May 24, 2005 - 3:33 pm 128. Kevin P:

Terrye:

Sen. Reid pronounced that the nuke option is “gone for our lifetime” as a topic for discussion. Rehnquist and Scalia,and especially Thomas all could have been fillibustered. The reason they were not was because it just wasn’t kosher. The dems could not stand the thought of Clarence Thomas and they had enough votes to fillibuster forever but they just didn’t do it. I thought the Republicans stalled too many Clinton nominations but at least they had the excuse that they were the majority in the Senate. This doesn’t make it right but it at least has a majority minority argument behind it.

Of course this is not legally binding and the Republicans can do anything they want but I think it will be far harder to do later then yesterday. The democrats are already attacking Bush and Cheney as the rapists of the constitution and they are going to build this agreement up as if it was the eleventh commandment.Reid boldly told Bush and Cheney that their powergrab was beaten down by the defenders of moderation over fanaticism. And they are using the republican senators to verbally beat on him

I have no problem with a Republican Senator voting against one of Bush’s nominees.But this whole process alows them to hide their views from the people who vote for them. This is the same for democrats from more conservative states.

How this pans out is anyones guess but I don’t like the smell of it.

May 24, 2005 - 3:45 pm 129. Rick Ballard:

Kevin,

It is precisely a method by which the unprincipled are allowed to hide. McCain has a voting record that scores as conservative but anyone who has watched him since he climbed out of Tom Keating’s pocket when Tom was arrested knows that it’s all a wink and a nod conservatism. He’s not an honest politician at all – he never stays bought and he’s always for sale – usually for an MSM appearance.

The guy I feel for in this is Mitch McConnell. He is one of the very, very few in the Senate who can actually articulate a set of principles and invite anyone who wishes to examine his record for actions which are consonant with those principles. I’d really like to see McConnell sitting on the Court next to Pryor.

May 24, 2005 - 4:08 pm 130. ed:

Hmmmm.

@ Terrye

“Flaming leftists? That is extreme.”

“…We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both DEMOCRATIC and Republican, PRIOR to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration. …”

“Scalia and Rehnquist are not leftists and Democrats voted for them both.”

And was this within the last 4 years?

“Hell, I am no expert but the support for the war is down and so is support for social security. If Republicans allow the Senate to meltdown they could lose their majority and then what good would this do them right now?”

The Republicans have had the majority for years now and it’s been an unmitigated disaster for conservatives.

May 24, 2005 - 4:22 pm 131. flenser:

“The Republicans have had the majority for years now and it’s been an unmitigated disaster for conservatives.”

Tax cuts and dead terrorists make me happy. So “umitigated” is considerable overkill. There is certainly room for improvement, but since you left the party it’s going to be tougher for you to make it happen.

May 24, 2005 - 4:43 pm 132. Buddy Larsen:

Ed, read your history, ideological purity creates antithesis…the more we move right, the more the left moves left…if the center-right is the Constitutional apotheosis–and history seems to say it is–how do we best enlarge the center-right? We want the crazy critters to come into camp and lay down their spears–not throw them at us and sharpen more. If we want a center-right SCOTUS, we’re proceeding apace. If we want more hard-left SCOTUS, there’s no better way to insure it than to make the great middle scared of us. We’re winning, slow down and enjoy it. It’s a live-and-let-live world. Just watched a TV show about Admiral Togo, who won the Russo-Japanese war. His motto was “win before you fight”. Moderation in the pursuit of virtue is virtuous.

May 24, 2005 - 4:51 pm 133. Terrye:

ed:

We encourage does not translate into flaming leftists.

I am pretty much a middle of the road kind of person on most things. I respect and support President Bush. But Repbulicans have to realize that they and the Democrats have one thing in common: if they stray too far in any direction people will retaliate and they will lose.

Time will tell how this thing will work. I have heard people a lot smarter than me disagree on who won and who lost and what will happen.

I think only time will tell and I think that we should remember that not only did 7 Republicans sign this, 7 Democrats did as well. Without them it will be very difficult for the Democrats to pull off a filibuster.

The Senate needs to get some things done now, people are tired of this bickering and bitching.

May 24, 2005 - 5:17 pm 134. Buddy Larsen:

Yes, past a certain point it’s all self-procedure, all Hamlet’s solel soulil siloloq that big ass long speech he made about to be or not to be.

May 24, 2005 - 5:32 pm 135. flenser:

Buddy, you are a one man quote machine. First “Croesus-Left” and now “Moderation in the pursuit of virtue is virtuous”. Is there a book of buddyisms coming out?

May 24, 2005 - 5:34 pm 136. Buddy Larsen:

Ha! Thanks, flenser…the company is inspirational: “Fool’s Names and Fool’s Faces are Often Seen in Public Places!” ()

May 24, 2005 - 5:49 pm 137. Buddy Larsen:

Hmm…I italicized ‘ibid’ between the parentheses, and it disappeared! Crazy code.

May 24, 2005 - 5:51 pm 138. flenser:

You are probably already familiar with Bowman. I would dearly love to see the final question asked.

http://www.jamesbowman.net/diaryDetail.asp?hpID=117

May 24, 2005 - 6:05 pm 139. Buddy Larsen:

Naw, but I bookmarked him, Bowman..great stuff! That suggested comeback woulda made McClelland a folk-hero:

“And who made you the President of the United States?”

(I’d STILL be calling 911 for oxygen)

May 24, 2005 - 6:22 pm 140. Kevin P:

Roger:

I keep going over the agreement and shaking my head. I could be completly wrong but the Democrats seem to have made only one concrete concession. A vote for three judges. And we have no idea whether or not the 7 Republicans will even vote those 3 judges in or not. The promise of fillibusters only under extreme circumstances is so vague it could be defined in a thousand different ways.The fact that they only promised an up or down vote for three judges seems to imply that they have the option to fillibuster as much as they want on any judge other then the 3.

The Republicans have promised not to end the fillibuster in this congress. Graham and DeWine have been saying they have the right at any time to end judicial fillibusters ay any time but if that was the case why did they include the promise not to do it during this congress. They have also suggested that Bush consult with both parties before he submits a nomination. Although he is not legally bound by this the implication is if he doesn’t get reids approval the 7 republicans will uphold the fillibuster. If this isn’t the case why include it in the agreement.

Now lets say that after the three judges are approved the Dems start fillibustering again. Then Graham or DeWine say that the spirit of the agreement has been broken. the dems will point to the part of the agreement that says that the Republicans won’t try to end the fillibuster this congress. Even worse they will play sound bites from last nights press conference where the republican 7 claimed they were saving the Senate and stopping the senate from going over the cliff.What are they going to say? “It’s time to go over the cliff and end the Senate as we know it.”

May 24, 2005 - 6:36 pm 141. ed:

Hmmmm.

1. “Tax cuts and dead terrorists make me happy. So “umitigated” is considerable overkill. There is certainly room for improvement, but since you left the party it’s going to be tougher for you to make it happen.”

Excuse me? Tax cuts? Ummm. He passed a $1 trillion dollar entitlement that’s coming due in the next year. His Social Security “reform” is going to add another $2 trillion to the cost, and with a hike in taxes to cover it.

Look the tax cuts were temporary. They always were temporary. And the tax increases are going to happen, and they’ll be huge, in the next 2 years. So where does that leave us?

Dead terrorists? Well goody. That’s damn well worth a couple trillion any day of the week.

2. “Ed, read your history, ideological purity creates antithesis”

I’m not demanding ideological purity. I’m demanding some small stupid bone that I can hold up and at least try and convince myself that I haven’t been completely screwed in supporting the GOP. Frankly if I had supported the Democrats I’d have gotten pretty much what I have now.

Not a damn thing.

Judicial independence from ideological nonsense is important to me. So I’m a little unhappy that conservatives, who spent hundreds of millions of dollars electing Republicans, get 3 appeals court judges. How many liberals were appointed? I don’t know but I’m willing to bet a helluva lot more than 3.

3. “We encourage does not translate into flaming leftists.”

They fought this hard against people who are aren’t remotely hard-right. What do you think is going to happen if Bush appoints a serious conservative? But this agreement even precludes this from happening because Bush now has to provide a LIST of appointees that will then be winnowed down.

I do not see any conservative surviving this process.

Hey if it makes you feel better keep on thinking it’s all sweetness and light. I got screwed once by the GOP. You’ll be the ones to get screwed twice.

May 24, 2005 - 6:42 pm 142. charlotte:

What’s the alternative party, Ed? Libertarians are all over the map. Please don’t leave the GOP!

After the great back and forth here, it’s difficult to know whether the conservatives are over-reacting or the moderates are too sanguine. I’m trying to keep faith in Rove as Loki, myself

May 24, 2005 - 6:58 pm 143. flenser:

charlotte

Rick, Buddy, FA and myself are all more conservative than ed. And though not sanguine, we are not suicidal either. While there is life, there’s hope. I’d speculate that social conservatives have a lot more moral fibre than the other types. (I bet there is a fruit joke in there just trying to get out.)

May 24, 2005 - 7:12 pm 144. Buddy Larsen:

If there is, that fiber will drop it off at the pool.

May 24, 2005 - 7:29 pm 145. charlotte:

I’d speculate that social conservatives have a lot more moral fibre than the other types. (I bet there is a fruit joke in there just trying to get out.)

Ok, Flenser, as long as you are all regular Joes and don’t end up blocked by the Dems and RINOs–

(Are you British or Canadian or just spell that way?)

May 24, 2005 - 7:30 pm 146. charlotte:

(Flenser, Buddy’s faster on the draw ’cause he’s got some Harpo devicery)

May 24, 2005 - 7:39 pm 147. Buddy Larsen:

Ahh, Phil Spector, he broke de law and now has toupee.

May 24, 2005 - 7:51 pm 148. Rick Ballard:

Charlotte,

This hand was played too stupidly for Shiva/Loki (all praise his name) to be involved. It has the distinctive marks of the combined efforts of McCain/Graham – grandiose pomposity backed by asinine thimblewittery.

I just want a pound or two of flesh from the Seven Squisherai and a tight focus on the fact that McCain/Graham are unprincipled dolts. McCain will continue to blather about this as an achievement but Graham is already talking out of both sides of his mouth fast enough to sound like the worst caricature of a used car salesman ever heard. Sorry about that, Lindsey, but you’re toast and you can expect a primary battle from a very well funded opponent in a couple of years.

May 24, 2005 - 8:16 pm 149. flenser:

charlotte

Anglo-Irish? Sounds right.

ed

We all know how you feel because we feel the same way. Yeah, it’s frustrating. But this is the world as we have been given it to deal with, with its confused armies clashing by night. Try taking a longer view.

May 24, 2005 - 8:20 pm 150. flenser:

Who invoked the name of our Lord and Master?

Reminds me of this little ditty.

Rove Rove Rove your vote

Harshly ?till they scream

Hatefully hatefully hatefully hatefully

Life is just an unending opportunity to maximize global inequities and convert the resources of the third world into profits for a thin stratum of our plutocracy and meaningless diversionary consumer products for a bloated spoonfed sheeple whose obsequience and inability to apprehend our true agenda ensures the perpetuation of injustice

Cracks me up every time.

http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/1004/100404.html

May 24, 2005 - 8:27 pm 151. charlotte:

Flenser, am afraid it was I who referred to Master without leave and also who lured Buddy onto a tangerine. But Lileks’ ditty and Rick’s “thimblewittery” charge against McCain was worth it.

May 24, 2005 - 8:50 pm 152. charlotte:

um, were worth it

May 24, 2005 - 8:51 pm 153. Buddy Larsen:

“Why, leave it up to librals and we’ll all be speakin’ Chinee talk! What’s that, Mr. Secretary General Ping Pong King Fong Wong Kong? Yes sir, I’ll git right to it!”

Lileks, Nat’l Treasure.

May 24, 2005 - 8:56 pm 154. Syl:

Yes, I read it all! (giving myself a reward!)

My conclusion? It’s nice to see the humor win out after all the heavy panting!

You folks rock!

I only have a couple of thoughts right now.

(1)in the normal back and forth in a two-party system over the centuries, it’s the Republicans turn now. So, no matter what ’side’ I’d be on, I’d want Bush to get his nominees through. Except for…

(2)I don’t want those constitution-robbing progressives near the higher courts!

as for the specific results of this agreement, the Democrats surely will be able to filibuster a Bush nominee in the near future.

But only one.

Any more than one, and they’ll be deemed obstructionists.

May 24, 2005 - 9:15 pm 155. Luther McLeod:

Now that the storm and thunder have subsided. My two cents.

Regardless of the particulars, and with the understanding that the cultural fight is the (in my humble mind) most important battle we face. There are certain facets of this discussion, and of the drive to place more ‘originalists’ and/or conservative judges in the courts that give me pause.

I remember ‘blue laws’ (in my state I cannot buy alcohol before ten o’clock on a Sunday) (still), I remember true ‘censorship’ (the first time I read Sexus, Plexus and Nexus, I could have gone to jail if discovered), I remember when the the majority of the ‘established’ religions in this country had not much to say about civil rights for all. And, yes, I’m aware that Christians have led the way for abolishing a number of evils in this world. But Churches can often be confused.

My point is, I don’t want to go backward. The genie is out of the bottle in respect to personal freedoms (though at this point without the attendant personal responsibility.) The Repubs have to work out a way to communicate that this country is in great danger, that our values, our very way of life is at risk of disappearing. I strongly feel that this cannot be done by appealing to domestic social issues. That is a losing cause.

May 24, 2005 - 9:26 pm 156. ed:

Hmmmm.

“Any more than one, and they’ll be deemed obstructionists.”

By whom?

Conservatives already view them as obstructionists.

Republicans feel the same way.

Moderates generally don’t care all that much.

Libertarians frankly don’t know what to think.*

Liberals think they’re standing up for the “little guy”.

So who is left to deem them obstructionist?

*Libertarians have trouble with conservative judges because they oppose judicial activism, but don’t like socially conservative judges who might want to restrict choices. Frankly I was a libertarian for all of about 25 minutes. It always struck me as odd how 10 libertarians could have 25 widely differing opinions on the same subject.

May 24, 2005 - 10:02 pm 157. Buddy Larsen:

It’s a numbers game; there’ll never be enough Librarians to form a real third party.

May 24, 2005 - 10:06 pm 158. Kevin P:

Roger:

Poor Graham. McCain is going to get all the love as the maverick moderate who saved the senate from the press and the Dems. Graham is catching holy hell from his home state and that is why he has been practically crying on most on his interviews today. In one talk he spoke about how he wants to get rid of the fillibusters for judges. Ok. The one chance you had to do it you tossed away to be McCains valet. And Reid and all of his new Democrat buddies now think he is vunerable and will go after him in the next election. Graham looks like a deer caught in the headlights.

May 24, 2005 - 10:27 pm 159. Tom Holsinger:

I agree with Norman Rogers. This is a political deal, not a legal contract. They agree until any one of them disagrees, and then as much of it is off as any one of them wants. The GOP Senators who signed it gave up nothing, zero, zip, nada, zilch.

Majority Leader Frist cannot, repeat, CANNOT call for a filibuster rules interpretation vote until BOTH of the following occur:

a) a filibuster of any nominee and

b) a failed cloture vote on terminating that filibuster.

The Democratic Senators who signed the agreement were the ones who caved, not the Republicans. The seven Democrats said they will vote for cloture, and they just did. As long as those seven Democrats keep voting for cloture on filibusters, Frist can’t get a vote on changing the rules.

Only, only, if four of those seven Democratic Senators vote against cloture on some future filibuster might Frist be able to schedule a rules interpretation vote. At which point he’d need only two of the seven Republican Senators, and he has those already – DeWine and Graham.

I think the Democrats just lost big.

And I have a new term for the hysterical right – ankle-biting conservatives, like those small barky dogs which jump up and down threatening to bite but never do bite. I refer in particular here to the Not One More Dime threat. Ankle-biting conservatives are just making fools of themselves. Again.

May 24, 2005 - 10:46 pm 160. Buddy Larsen:

And Graham looked right into the camera today–a camera he was not caught-in-passing-by, but seemed glad to have–and said that his personal signal that MOU is dead is the first filibister. He said, “The first filibuster, the deal is off as far as I’m concerned.” Pretty plain, pretty clear. GWB later said something, nearlyb lost at some gathering where he made remarks, something along the lines of “The people send us up here to work together and try to get something done!” Also pretty plain, and pretty clear.

The leftic judiciary really had us by the throat when so few of us understood that they did. There’s sunlight all over those folks these days, and they read papers and watch TV–probably read blogs, too, or someone nearby does. Half the battle was getting the problem known by a critical mass of voters. We’re a long way from undoing the most damaging of the social-engineering, but I do think it’s deadly days are behind it. IF we can keep winning elections. So, let’s us be the friendly ‘big tent’people that win in the end, rather than the dour complainers that the other side is so delighted to have as a foil.

BTW, has anyone ever seen Mark McKinney and Lincoln Chafee in the same place together?

May 24, 2005 - 11:15 pm 161. Syl:

ed…”So who is left to deem them obstructionist?”

The 83% of Americans who aren’t paying too much attention right now.

Buddy..”So, let’s us be the friendly ‘big tent’people that win in the end, rather than the dour complainers that the other side is so delighted to have as a foil.”

amen!

Can I be the clown that rides around the ring in the tiny cute car?

May 25, 2005 - 1:49 am 162. Terrye:

I agree with Tom Holsinger here. The right can not win without people like me and unless they learn to compromise they might lose some of us.

So go ahead, don’t give them one more dime…but if there is not something going on up there instead of bitching and moaning and whining I might back off.

I will support Bush, but I am getting real tired of all this crap.

If the Dems break the deal, then so can the Republicans. This is not law, it is just a political agreement among a pivotal 14 Senators.

By pitching such a fit Republicans are just making themselves look rigid and hysterical.

Right now there are too many important things to do, like putting Bolton in the UN, to bring government to a halt over this issue if it can be avoided.

Threatening to take your football and go home is not a really mature way to deal with not getting your way all the freaking time.

May 25, 2005 - 3:53 am 163. Rick Ballard:

Only, only, if four of those seven Democratic Senators vote against cloture on some future filibuster might Frist be able to schedule a rules interpretation vote. At which point he’d need only two of the seven Republican Senators, and he has those already – DeWine and Graham.

I think the Democrats just lost big.

I’m submitting this to the Road Apple Gilders Guilder for possible inclusion in their Hall of Fame.

The fact is that if two of the Seven Squisherai had conformed to party discipline all nominees would be brought to the floor in the future. The conservative wing of the Republican Party will tolerate compromise on anything but judges. They are correct to go on a donation strike concerning this and they will never – even with a Hillary candidacy – vote for McCain or Graham. The country survived Bubba and it would survive Hillary. It won’t survive robed lefties legislating from the bench.

McCain and Graham were not acting from any conviction other than grabbing the spotlight as a centrist tag time. The size of the miscalculation involved in this is additional proof of their lack of fitness for higher office.

May 25, 2005 - 7:12 am 164. richard mcenroe:

Buddy Larsen ó And the MOU is “really, really dead,” the second time they filibuster…

For this deal to work, you have to presume two things:

1. Democrats honor their deals.

2. McCain and Lieberman are men of principle. Ask Keating’s depositors and the clients of Arthur Andersen about that.

Ain’t gonna work, folks.

May 25, 2005 - 7:41 am 165. flenser:

Terrye

We have put up with a great deal from Bush and the Republican Congress, including massive new entitlement programs and wide open borders for any illegal immigrant who cares to come here. We are willing to accept half a loaf. We are not willing to be constantly fobbed off with promises that, maybe, at some point in the future, we may be given a few crumbs.

This is a war on many fronts. One of those fronts is right here in America.

If you actually belive what you are saying, why don’t you ask the Democrats to stop their unprecedented actions, instead of expecting the President to surrender his power to appoint judges?

May 25, 2005 - 8:07 am 166. Buddy Larsen:

It doesn’t work as a peace treaty, y’all are right. It’s a truce, and one which will point out quite clearly whodunnit when/if it’s broken. There is recourse.

The ‘majority-party bully’ is so much baloney, but it plays, it’s a headline risk in a nation with a bias toward the underdog.

It’s not Von Clauswitz, it’s Sgt. York. A tactical, small-unit action where we grabbed seven POWs and got back alive. We now have a ‘center party’ of 14 in the senate, and a formerly nebulous, diffuse pressure now is on identifiable faces. It’s like passing gas in the elevator, the fewer occupants the less incentive.

May 25, 2005 - 8:59 am 167. Tom Holsinger:

Rick,

What makes you think two less GOP Senators in the deal would have affected the outcome?

As long as enough Democratic Senators vote for cloture on each filibuster, the rules change can’t come up for a vote.

The Democrats caved. They voted for cloture. I’m fine with them voting for cloture on each filibuster. A win is a win.

Get back to me the next time the Democrats successfully filibuster one of Bush’s judicial nominees.

May 25, 2005 - 10:30 am 168. Kevin P:

Terrye;

I am a independent but I don’t see myself voting anything other then Republican untill the Dems get serious about national defense and all the signs I see is that they are getting less serious. My biggest problem with the deal is that I can’t see any benifit for the Republicans by signing the deal.If Graham and DeWine had not jumped ship the fillibuster question would be over and done with. There is no doubt in my mind that the dems will start fillibustering again.And you are 100% correct that the Republicans are under no legal obligation to not go back to the nuclear option.

My thinking is all the Republicans did by signing the agreement is give the dems more PR weapons when the fight comes up again.It gives them more time to build up there PR machine. If, as Graham says, that he will switch back look what the Dems can hit him with.They would say we only guaranteed the three judges and we did not say we wouldn’t fillibuster, in fact the agreement says that we retain the right to do it. It is not a right if we can’t use it.They will point to the part of the agreement that says the Republicans would not try the NO this congress.Remember this is PR, not reality.And as I said before they have all the soundbites that have the Republican 7 saying how awfull losing the fillibuster would be and those are going to be played in every move on ad that is played when the battle comes up again.

I am not saying that I know for sure that you are wrong. I know I could have this issue totally backwards and I might be having to swallow my words when this is all over and done with. It just seems that we had the battle won. I can’t see any scenario where the dems will not start fillibustering again. We will have to go thru this whole thing all over again. And the dems will fight harder because they were able to pull victory out of defeat the other day. And I think they have picked up some valuable PR points.The definitionof extrodinary circumstances is in the eye of the beholder.

May 25, 2005 - 11:21 am 169. Rick Ballard:

Kevin,

Another way to look at this is that it was conceived as a no loss centrist move by the feeble minded McGraham braintrust. They went in knowing that the Dems will betray the agreement but they were too stupid to hammer out an agreement putting all the onus on the Dems when they do break it. So when the break comes and McGraham announce that the Dems have done the unthinkable and McGraham are going switch their votes in “support of the party”, the Dems are going to hammer them and hopefully hurt them.

McGraham have accomplished precisely nothing except earning additional contempt from conservatives. They richly deserve every bit of it. They are political opportunists without discernible principles – weathervanes – Clinton squared.

May 25, 2005 - 1:17 pm 170. flenser:

Rick

A lot depends on whether you believe the logjam has been broken for the indefinite future, of if you think the Democrats have cleverly bled off a little pressure and will now go straight back to their obstructionist game plan. We wonít know the answer to this for a few months, or until the next SC court seat opens up. For now, itís not clear whether the deal is a minor annoyance or a major hindrance to our getting judges confirmed.

The preceding assumes that the language in the deal about how the President should run any nominee by the gang of 14 will be ignored. If these 14 senators are going to be the new de-facto judicial committee, then we can expect any conservative judges to get filtered out, and the deal is a disaster. We should find the answer to this one within a couple of weeks at most.

May 25, 2005 - 2:19 pm 171. flenser:

“The Repubs have to work out a way to communicate that this country is in great danger, that our values, our very way of life is at risk of disappearing. I strongly feel that this cannot be done by appealing to domestic social issues. That is a losing cause.”

Then we may as well pack it in, head to a bar, and drink ourselves to death, because that is the only cause that means anything. Otherwise, what are we even bothering to fight abroad for?

May 25, 2005 - 2:48 pm 172. Buddy Larsen:

Flenser makes a helluva point…it is quite possible to diverge onto the eco issues and see the socials as a mere add-on. This is bass-ackwards, and we don’t need the Rev. Falwell to point it out. Just look at the 90s. Look at what happens top-to-bottom in American life with a bad moral example up-top during a big growth phase of capitalism. The president is “the” American. During the 90s an appreciable percentage of global capital flowed into our bubble, just as the worldwide communications revolution was spreading the impression–from Hollywood to Main Street to Wall Street to DC–that we were not serious people but rather a buncha lucky parvenue ingrates. Takes more than just sayin’ so that that ain’t us. On of the slowly sinking-in messages of GWoT I think.

May 25, 2005 - 3:30 pm 173. flenser:

Actually, Luther’s post manages to contradict itself. Unless our “values” and our “way of life” are somehow considered to be distinct from our “domestic social issues”. You’ll need a pretty good scalpel to try to seperate those.

May 25, 2005 - 5:16 pm 174. Luther McLeod:

Well truth be known I contradict myself all the time. How the hell can a fella have a decent conversation with himself without doing so.

The Instapundit coincidentally wrote something today that says what I was trying to say a heck of a lot better.

“On the other hand, Americans don’t like self-righteous busybodies — whether of the PC left or the religious right — telling them how to live, either.”

Scroll down to ‘Howard Fineman suggests’; http://www.instapundit.com/ and read the whole thing as he says.

That’s a lot more to the point, that I poorly attempted to make.

I would say that our ‘way of life’ consists of certain ‘bedrock’ values that the great center of this country might agree on. For an example of those values I would start with the opening statement of the “Bill of Rights”.

Just to be sure, I have no problems agreeing that ’social engineering’ by the leftist/socialist/media/academia/judges needs to be changed.

What I was saying is that there are ‘domestic social issues’ and there are ‘domestic social issues. A good part of either is in the eye of the beholder. And I think the center/right is the placeholder for further change in this great country.

May 25, 2005 - 6:09 pm 175. flenser:

The opening statement of the Bill of Rights;

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

Nothing there to argue with.

May 25, 2005 - 7:22 pm 176. Luther McLeod:

Fine flenser, make me the fool. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those are bedrock.

May 25, 2005 - 7:49 pm 177. Rick Ballard:

Luther,

Perhaps flenser was not making you out a fool at all – the Declaration was the bedrock of the enumerated rights. The Bill of Rights was added because without it we wouldn’t have had unanimity in the adoption of the Constitution. The holdout states were very specific in their arguments that the Constitution (without the Bill) did not adequately express those Declaration rights that you mention.

It all depends upon how you further develop your thoughts. I’d would certainly be among the last to argue that clarity exists in everything I write and I don’t really expect complete clarification in a comments section from anyone.

May 25, 2005 - 8:34 pm 178. Buddy Larsen:

Sometimes ya get the needle, sometimes the needle gets you…;-)

May 25, 2005 - 9:41 pm 179. Luther McLeod:

Thank you Rick. I did misquote. Believe it or not, I really have read the Constitution, the Declaration and the Bill of Rights. But, if I didn’t read it five minutes ago, I shouldn’t cite as source. Its all fuzzy anymore.

Perhaps I fired off without thinking it out, OTOH, I didn’t see my point addressed, just fool by misquote. And that’s OK really, I’ve been called much worse, and sometimes for damn good cause

Yeah, Buddy, you’re right. LOL

May 25, 2005 - 9:44 pm 180. Buddy Larsen:

Fuzzy? Let me tell ya ab o ut fu z

(*zzzzz*)

May 25, 2005 - 10:16 pm 181. Rick Ballard:

Luther,

I’m sure you’ve studied the docs but I doubt that you’ve studied the Declaration as a theological argument. That’s why neither Flenser nor I could quite grasp the distinction you were attempting to make. Had it been stated as “I reject the imposition of any particular theological dogma upon a particular set of circumstances.” then I would understand it from a First Amendment POV. Our founding documents most closely pertain to those adhering to Judeo Christian ethical/moral precepts. They are really unsuitable for Moslems (for example)because the underlying theology contradicts (is in fact, antithetical) to Islam. There is no concept of “free will” in Islam.

May 25, 2005 - 10:53 pm 182. flenser:

Luther

Yes, I can be really pedantic. And yes, I know itís annoying. Maybe I should have been a lawyer.

If ìLife, liberty, and the pursuit of happinessî was the phrase you were referring to, I have to say that I regard that as empty boilerplate. Perhaps there are some people, somewhere, who would say ìwe donít want no stinkiní life, liberty, or happinessî, but if so I have never heard of them. The countries of South America have marvelous constitutions, many of them modeled on our own, full of wonderful principles. What has it gotten them?

The hard fact of the matter is that it is not the wonderful secular peoples of Europe or Canada who are fighting this war, it is the ëtheocraticí Americans led by their overtly religious commander in chief. That in itself should give you pause.

This country is worth defending not because it has some platitudes written in the Declaration or Constitution, but only insofar as its people subscribe to some moral precepts. Otherwise, there is nothing left but power for its own sake.

One of those precepts, written into the Declaration, is that among the inalienable rights that we the people have are the right to self-governance. It is that precept that is under attack and that is causing the ìdomestic social issuesî which you mention. There are two sides in this debate. One holds that the type of society we live in should ultimately depend on the principles that the people themselves, through their legislatures, decide to enact into law.

The other takes the view that every aspect of human existence above the level of brushing your teeth is ultimately an aspect of constitutional law, and that the type of society we live in should be determined by a small but powerful elite, much as is done in Europe. That is not a society which deserves to be defended. It is a society that buys the acquiescence of the people with the promise of empty pleasures, such as a steady supply of porn and narcotics.

The various ëblue lawsí that have you so exercised were passed by local legislative bodies reflecting the will of the people. When they decide they no longer want these laws, they can, and have, repealed them. I get the impression that you imagine it would be an improvement if some judge decided that such laws are ëunconstitutionalí. Contrary to what you believe, this would not result in freedom, but in tyranny, and I would hope that no American would ever volunteer to die in defense of such a proposition. From what I can see, none have.

Apologies for the slightly off-topic comments, but this goes to the heart of what the fight over judges is all about.

May 26, 2005 - 11:04 am 183. flenser:

If anyone is still folowing this thread, there is further discussion of the above topic here.

http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2005/04/civil-libertarian-wedding-bells.html

May 26, 2005 - 12:09 pm 184. Buddy Larsen:

Yes, it does seem that certain ‘rights’ that are ‘felt’ to have been ‘given’ us by the government as ‘freedoms’, are precisely those that invite tyranny of the ’self’. These involve the so-called cultural issues, and are indeed the heart of the conflict. Our conflict is in turn the heart of the world conflict, as who would make war on a united United States?

May 26, 2005 - 12:19 pm 185. Luther McLeod:

Rick

You are correct that I have not studied the Declaration as theological argument. “Laws of Nature and of Natures God” and “Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence.” Those are the only mentions of theological inspiration that I can see. To my mind the greater body of the Declaration rests on a materialist perspective or “Laws of Nature” as conceived and remonstrated by men. In short, I see no use of theological morality as justification and/or reasoning in the call for Independence. This is of course without the context of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

You are also probably correct in that I should have raised my objections to “any particular theological dogma upon a particular set of circumstances.” in a “Bill of Rights” perspective. More solid ground there.

flenser

I’ll try and address your points, or at least some of them.

“empty boilerplate”

I understand what you are saying, but.. was it boilerplate at the time it was written? I hope not. IMO, at the time that was a fairly radical statement. At the least, it is a statement of hope and inspiration for a life without tyranny.

“theocratic? Americans led by their overtly religious commander in chief.”

If I remember correctly, all of our President’s have either been, or at the least, professed to be overtly religious. And, that doesn’t bother me a bit. Well maybe that’s not entirely true, I would like to see the day when someone of any or even no religious persuasion could be considered qualified and competent for that position. As for theocratic Americans fighting the war.. well are they fighting because they are theocratic or are they fighting in the hopes of spreading some of that life, liberty and happiness around? From experience, it is not necessary to be a ‘believer’ to be willing to fight for God, country and Corps, nor to love this Country.

“moral precepts”

Well..point of fact, there is way too much there for me to cover. If memory serves there is still spirited discussion in the world as from where “morals” sprang. I once again have no problem conceding that religion may have been the original wellspring of the majority of our shared morals. Though I also think that there have always been men/women who have wished for a saner and less violent world regardless of there belief in any particular divinity. I don’t disagree that without ‘morals’, there is only power. But, man, has that concept ever been twisted around to suit the needs of power.

“Two sides” and “domestic social issues”;

I’ll not say much here, but if you think I am on the ‘other’ side as compared to ‘your’ side, at least as based on what you wrote, then you seriously misunderstand me, though with my poor writing skills I can understand that. I will say that comments such as “steady supply of porn and narcotics” does a disservice to both ’sides’ in this domestic conflict.

“blue laws” and “you imagine it would be an improvement if some judge decided that such laws are ?unconstitutional” and “Contrary to what you believe, this would not result in freedom, but in tyranny;”

First off, you have no idea what I believe. I think here you are just putting words in my mouth which I did not speak. I understand fairly well the origin of law in this country. Perhaps you are not old enough to remember the “blue laws” of which I speak (good for you if so). But there was a time when one could go to jail for possession of the books I mentioned above. I don’t think that’s right. Just remember, there are times when one man’s freedom is another man’s tyranny and the converse of course.

To sum up, I just want the pendulum of change to swing in a lesser arc. I’m tired of extremes, of any kind, though I realize extremes are sometimes needed. As I said, I just don’t want to go backward.

Forgot one thing, I happen to agree that the Dem’s have been reprehensible in this judge matter. I think all the President’s nominees should be given an up or down on the floor of the Senate.

I thank you both for the engagement.

Roger, sorry about the bandwidth.

May 26, 2005 - 6:44 pm 186. Buddy Larsen:

“To sum up, I just want the pendulum of change to swing in a lesser arc.”

…and you complain about your expressive skills? I think not.

May 26, 2005 - 7:51 pm 187. flenser:

Luther

Maybe I was thinking of different blue laws than you were. Where I live most business are still closed on Sunday. (This is NJ)

When I think of blue laws I mean the following;

‘Many remnants of “blue laws” survived into the late twentieth century as seemingly nonsensical patchworks of regulations about which types of businesses could operate on Sundays and what items they could sell. Thus various jurisidictions might have regulations which, on Sundays, prohibited the sale of hammers but not nails, forbade trading in horses while allowing automobile dealerships to remain open, or prohibited the purchase of alcohol at liquor stores but not grocery stores.’

http://www.snopes.com/language/colors/bluelaws.htm

While a little annoying at times, this is hardly the kind of thing I expect the courts to eliminate. As for banning books, I don’t think the practice is terribly effective, especially in the internet age. But just because something is silly or unwise does not mean it is unconstitutional.

As for the domestic social issues, I don’t know what side you are on and did not intend the remarks to apply uniformly to you personally. I see now that it could be taken to imply that you are some sort of drug or porn addict. My apologies if that was how you read it.

I think the issue of what it is we are fighting for is an important one, and one that has been neglected, so I thank you for the discussion. Maybe we’ll have it again sometime.

May 26, 2005 - 7:54 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: