The compromise: It's hard to see what Reid and the Democrats got out of the deal. Vague language about what might happen in the future. Where is the restoration of blue-slip and Rule IV? The elimination of those was what drove the Democrats to the Last Stand of filibustering.
And another thing. What Frist and Cheney were going to do was explicitly against the Senate rules. How does one compromise with that? It probably would have been better to take the issue to the brink, and forced the Republicans to go on record. Also, we're pretty sure Frist did not have the votes. Warner was almost a sure bet to preserve the filibuster, and then there was McCain, Collins, Snowe, Chaffee. How difficult would it have been to get a sixth Republican?
From
Salon.com: (emp add)
Susan Collins and other senators involved in the deal suggested Monday night that it was never really in doubt -- that too many senators were too afraid of what the nuclear option would bring. Democrats were afraid it would destroy the Senate's tradition as a "cooling saucer," the place where debate outruns passions and minority views can moderate majority desires. Republicans feared that they might someday live to reap what they sowed, and that in the meantime Democrats could make their lives difficult by using Senate rules to slow legislation in the Senate to an agonizingly difficult pace.
Here's the problem:
At some point in the future, the Democrats will oppose a judicial nomination. Frist will declare their action a betrayal of the compromise. And that will be used as a pretext for a second attempt at the nuclear option. And it might work because the Republicans can then position themselves as "preservers of the rules", even though they aren't.
On the other hand, here is what Hugh Hewitt has to
say: (emp add)
It is impossible to say whether this is a "terrible" deal, a "bad" deal, or a very, very marginally "ok" deal, but it surely is not a good deal. Not one dime more for the NRSC from me unless and until the Supreme Court nominee gets confirmed, and no other filibusters develop. I won't spend money on a caucus supporting organization when the caucus can't deliver a majority.
Let the spinning begin!
posted by Quiddity at 5/23/2005 10:27:00 PM
I would have like to have seen Owens turned down, but I've heard some mixed things about Brown (decent on some issues, unlike Owens who is uniformly bad).
But I'm actually glad to see Pryor getting a pass. He's been a recess appointment and has actually made some rulings.
For example, he was on the appeals court ruling regarding Terry Schiavo. AND he voted to turn down the move to reinsert her feeding tube.
Let's see how ShrubCo and Frist can explain THAT to Dobson & Co, and why it they were working so hard to get Pryor on the bench perminantly.
The big problem is the potential downside was so huge -- carte blanche for Bush to appoint anyone to any court, including likely two appointments to the Supreme Court. I wouldn't want to take a chance with that myself. I'd rather see a vote down on the nuclear option, but the risk was extreme.
I have to agree that this is hardly a victory. It's very difficult to see what the Democrats have gained here. The 3 worst extremists get on the bench for the rest of their lives, and there's not really a firm promise by the "moderate" Repubs to support the current Senate rules regardless of the circumstances. If Reid thinks for a minute that the MSM will now portray Democrats as reasonable and Repugs as extremist, I have a bridge to sell him.
Maybe this was the best the Democrats could hope for, but it only slows our slide into totalitarianism. We need Democrats on the offensive, not on the defensive being forced to choose between two unacceptable options. The American people are disgusted with these extremist clowns but the Democrats are still unable to deliver a coherent and consistent alternative. Dean is trying, but it's an uphill pull.
