No Nukes
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Republicans — Comments (66) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Blogosphere is abuzz with the news that there has been a deal on the judicial confirmation wars. You can find the text of the deal here, courtesy of an excellent blogger who is most displeased with it.
A good deal, it is said, makes both sides unhappy, and that appears to be the case here (just take a look at the comment sections for each link and you will see). However, my reading of the deal is that it is much better for the Republicans than many Republicans seem to think.
Here is why:
First of all, Republicans get three nominees the opportunity to get up-or-down votes (Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and Bill Pryor). All three of these nominees have been adjudged by Democrats as being too extreme to be elevated to the bench--thus the filibusters that were employed against them. All three will now become federal judges confirmed by the Senate. The obvious implication--given that Democrats will now give them votes--is that they were not extreme nominees and that Democrats were grandstanding with empty rhetoric that ultimately, they did not even believe in. To be sure, Republicans will need to hammer that point home, but if they do, they will score a major talking points victory.
Future filibusters will only be conducted in "extraordinary circumstances." Yes, this statement is meaningless. Yes, it will be judged on a case-by-case basis. And no, there is nothing to prevent Democrats from saying "I don't like the color of the nominees shirt and for me that is extraordinary circumstance enough to oppose him/her." But just as Democrats may choose to claim "extraordinary circumstances" on a case-by-case basis, Republicans can call B.S. on a case-by-case basis as well. Again, this will depend on execution, but if there is another run-of-the-mill filibuster, Republicans can claim that the deal has been breached, and that the elimination of the filibuster is again on the table (note that in Senate Majority Leader Frist's speech before the Senate, he refused to take the elimination of the filibuster off the table).
Patterico highlights Section II, subsection B of the agreement and concludes that it is part and parcel of "a complete and pointless capitulation." I disagree. If the deal is maintained and kept in good faith (meaning, of course, that filibusters really are employed only in "extraordinary circumstances" as people of good faith and common sense would define the term), then it is perhaps to be expected that the elimination of the filibuster will not take place. But if the deal is breached by the circumstances discussed above, or by alternative circumstances, then it stands to reason that the decision "to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress" will no longer be binding. Once more, this depends on execution and proper follow-through by Republicans to act on a breach that is conducted in bad faith. But that option is not precluded to Republicans.
One of the generally agreed interpretations of the deal is that Supreme Court nominees (and we may see one as early as this summer) will not be filibustered. Patterico takes a dim view of this, but even if his interpretation is correct, I say "So what?". It is better for the Bush Administration in any event to nominate an outsider to succeed Chief Justice Rehnquist since it would be easier to handle only one confirmation fight no matter what the circumstances, and since the favored conservative candidate to succeed Chief Justice Rehnquist--Antonin Scalia--is probably too old for the job and too well-suited to being an Associate Justice who can shake things up instead of being a Chief Justice who has to sublimate his natural (and delightful) pugnacity in order to forge and achieve a consensus among his colleagues. Tell me what conservative or libertarian would not be happy with the appointment of a J. Harvie Wilkinson, or a Michael Luttig, or a John Roberts or a Michael McConnell as Chief Justice. It would be hard to find such a person. Republicans need only nominate one very good and very reliable outsider to serve as Chief Justice and any problems viewed by Patterico are solved.
Again, this deal could go sour if Republicans do not follow up on any breach. But that is and could be the case for any deal. In the meantime, Republicans have gained three new judicial appointments, a Supreme Court appointment that is free from a filibuster, boxed the Democrats in on what would be considered a reasonable filibuster and still kept the option to eliminate the filibuster on the table. Democrats have gained . . . er . . . what, exactly? Filibusters on two other nominees who may not even have the votes according to some sources to prevail in an up-or-down vote?
Color me unimpressed. I understand the desire of Republicans to get rid of the filibuster entirely when it comes to judicial nominees. I share in that desire. But remember that politics is a game of inches. Tip O'Neill once admiringly said of Ronald Reagan that the latter may not get 100% of what he wanted, but that Reagan would always get about 80%. When Reagan heard the compliment, he responded by saying "Yeah. And then next time, I go after the other 20%."
The other 20% is out there for Republicans to get. And if this deal falls apart thanks to bad faith on the other side, we can go out and get it.
« Burn the Witch — Comments (18) | The upside of the deal — Comments (28) »
No Nukes 66 Comments (0 topical, 66 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Here's hoping you're right, Pejman. FWIW I think you're pretty close. Time will tell. And if the Demos. decide to play games with this, it's time to remember Beyond Thunderdome, except this time, let's exile the bad guys.
The controlled chaos of Bartertown is maintained by one inflexible law that states that no deal can be broken, no matter what. Entity recognizes Max as a resourceful - if disposable - fighter, and strikes a deal with him to provoke a duel with and kill Blaster in the "Thunderdome", a gladiatorial-esque arena where conflicts are resolved, turning what is arguably a political assassination into a lawful act. Max defeats Blaster, but refuses to kill him, as he realizes that Blaster is a retarded simpleton, innocent as a child. An enraged Entity kills Blaster herself and then invokes their single law - since Max broke his deal with her, as underhanded as it was: "bust a deal -- face the wheel." The wheel, a spinning metal disc with an arrow pointing to one of several consequences, lands on "Gulag". He is cast out of Bartertown, exiled to the desert.
Harry Reid, exiled forever to the desert. Now that's an entertaining thought.
should be tolereated. This is just not right.
Pejman, we are in agreement. I would add only two things.
- DeWine and Graham hold the balance. If they think the deal has been broached, they can join the other 48 Republicans to invoke the Constitutional Option in action. In fact, the mere threat could avoid a filibuster. They hold the definition of "extraordinary circumstances" in their hands.
- I think the nomination of 56-year-old Rogers-Brown or 51-year-old Owen for the Chief Justice seat would be an appropriate way to back Dems into a corner. They must become hypocritical and filibuster, or else accept them without filibustering. That's not to say I wouldn't be happy with those you mention.
You're a talented writer and thinker. As far as I can recall, this is the first time I've taken serious issue with anything you've ever said. But for me, I think you're putting lipstick on a pig.
The fight, from the beginning, was about not allowing a shrinking minority to hijack the appeals process. And while it was certainly unacceptable to let 45 Senators decide who gets on the court and who doesn't, it strikes me as somewhat less acceptable to let this cadre of 14 decide instead. And here, I'm giving the other 13 the benefit of the doubt - I rather believe, as I've already stated, that John McCain has just become the rubber-stamp man on this issue, which is perhaps the worst solution I could possibly envision.
Second, this compromise has already done much to damage the party as a whole, in less than three hours. Sure, the Dems are a little upset that three judges got through, but even Kos recognizes this for what it is: a win for the Democrats. I don't hear any of them calling for Robert Byrd's head on a pike because he's sold his party down the river. On the other hand, I certainly would not want to be in Mike DeWine's shoes come fund-raising season next year. Frankly, I think the NRSC is going to suffer greatly as a whole if this debacle plays out the way I think it will. For a pittance (three judges!!) the Democrats have convinced enough Republicans to highly tick off the most loyal base of the national party. Game, set, and match, they win this round.
In the meantime, Republicans have gained three new judicial appointments, a Supreme Court appointment that is free from a filibuster, boxed the Democrats in on what would be considered a reasonable filibuster and still kept the option to eliminate the filibuster on the table.
The idea that Republicans have gained "a Supreme Court appointment that is free from a filibuster" since there was nothing in the Deal promising any such thing or that Republicans "still kept the option to eliminate the filibuster on the table" since the text of the deal clearly says that the signators agree to vote against the Byrd Option?
I really don't see any upside to the Deal except that Republicans have a guarantee of votes on 3 nominees when, had they used the Byrd option, they would have had had guaranteed votes on 7 nominees.
the constitution does not allow them to filibuster anyone - anything less than the "nuclear option" does damage to the constitution...
If the Democrats filibuster the first SC nominee that comes through in the wake of this agreement? They look like awfully sore winners, that's what.
are acceptable.
Don't know the other guys well enough.
Scalia, BTW, will be confirmed for CJ.
First, I agree with oystercatcher here. We'd like a one-time waiver from RedState on the no-profanity policy, since conservatives have been so royally bf'ed by those unprincipled RINOs. Not gonna happen, so I will just think all these vile words. Or go stir up trouble on dkos [sidebar on capitalization -- the Constitution, America, our military branches, our President, always capitalized -- dkos, (wish-they-would) moveon, hrc, bubba clinton -- never capitalized, and the ignomious seven and their members -- mccain, dewine, warner, et al, NEVER AGAIN].
Pejman, it's admirable (and practical) of you to look for the positive and start exploring the best ways for us to exploit the situation we are stuck with. Tomorrow or the day after, maybe I'll study all this and start fighting the good fight.
But it's still just one heck of a bad day for the good guys. First of all, Republicans get three nominees the opportunity to get up-or-down votes Well, as of tomorrow at high noon, we would have had opportunities for EVERY SINGLE NOMINEE, plus future SCOTUS nominees the chance for up-and-down votes.
The ignomious seven -- dead to me. Ah, I feel a little better.
by approving of my first choice (Luttig)?
Why would you accept Luttig and reject Brown?
But I'm sure that there are more than a few posters who under these extraordinary circumstances would appreciate a one-time waiver of the "no profanity" rule.
However unless and until that should happen, I'm keeping it clean ;)
the whole point behind the "Profanity is not tolerated" rule is that if you can't make a point without resorting to profanity, you probably didn't have a very good point to begin with.
There are plenty of snarky things that can be said without adding wasteful (and tasteless) filler.
. . . sometimes it helps to let off a little steam and that's what I took E Pluribus Unum's request to be.
IMHO, you need a good tag line. Thomas's [If this is mastery, then I'm a donut. - Mike Krempasky] remains the standard against which all tags lines are measured.
I may be being highly presumptuous -- it may be that 'Thorley J Winston' says all that need be said. The tag line is a very personal thing. I apologize profusely, if it offends.
Nominate Miguel Estrada for the first open spot -- and just dare them to filibuster.
But when you hit your thumb with a hammer, nothing feels quites so good as to insult the mother of every hammer that was ever created.
will be nominated and confirmed as CJ.
Straight swap - no harm done, under the circumstances.
But power is a game of perceptions. They've shown that they really don't know how to exercise power.
They've sold their majority for a mess of mush. I think there are a lot of donors who won't bother to support them next time.
I have not seen this comment anywhere else on the net yet, and I think you hit it just right - does not the deal give us an excellent, if not final, guide to the next supreme court nomination? If the democrats approve Owen, Brown and Pryor, doesn't that signal to the republicans that any one of those can move up? Or would that be an "extraordinary" circumstance allowing reconsideration, different/highest court and what not? In the alternative, have the republicans now publicly identified the democrats who cannot hide behind a future filibuster - i.e. the "go-to" cloture votes on the supr. court nominee?
Just wondering what markers this lays out for the next round of nominations.
All in all, I think this is in the sorta-OK category, to the extent it peels off some democrat "centrists". I may be blindered in this view, but the MSM emphasizes the republican mavericks without exploring possible cracks in democratic discipline. At the very least, it gives Frist et. al. a foot in the door to start jamming others in. I think there is a lot more space between Ben Nelson and Chuck Schumer than between McCain and Frist. Now Frist has to start publicly exploiting it.
Clearly, Myers and Saad (Kavanaugh, Estrada, etc..) seem to await more republican senators after the '06 elections, unless they can get linked to some other deal.
When and if Bush gets to nominate a replacement for one of the gang of five on the SCOTUS, one for one isn't gonna raise any hackles.
that counts when it comes to SCOTUS nominations, it's who they replace that's contentious.
see Miguel Estrada replace Scalia w/out any problems, yes?
Riiiight!
I was about to cry when I first heard about the Deal, but it's not the end of the world and Pejman makes some good points. Here's my view:
________________ Pros: __________________
-
* 3 good judges named to the bench
-
* Supreme Court: Nominating a judge to the Supreme Court who has been previously approved by the Senate (especially Democrats) should be a "sure thing" (almost certainly can't be considered an 'extraordinary circumstance')
-
* Sen. McCain's presidential aspirations are history (judicial nominess Agreement and trusting those select Democrats, campaign finance reform)
-
* If Dems filibuster someone who is just a conservative or originalist, those Repubs wbo signed the Agreement will have extra pressure to vote FOR the Constitutional Option to end the filibuster. This will give those who signed an 'out' to support Frist by saying the Democrats betrayed there promises.
________________ Cons: __________________
-
* Republicans will most likely be in this soap opera again soon
-
* Judges for the Supreme Ct who weren't previously approved by the Senate can much more easily be tagged 'extraordinary'.
-
* The Agreement says President Bush will 'consult' with Democrats and Republicans FIRST before nominating a judge. So, Democrats will likely cry 'extraordinary' and 'breach of Agreement' if President Bush didn't get unanimous approval from Democrats (and you know Dems will NEVER say they were properly consulted)
-
* Republican base is going to be extremely demoralized if things don't go the Republican's way from here on out.
-
* Frist's Presidential aspirations have been greatly hindered if he can't even lead his party. I like Bill Ownes, Mitt Romney, or maybe even Guiliani (b/c he can win) in 2008 anyways
The office of Chief Justice is more administrative than anything, he doesn't get to decide which cases they hear and he only has one vote just like the rest.
One for one, no harm done, under the circumstances.
In my experience in parlimentary wranglings, trying to make nice with opponents almost always leads to bitter disappointment. You are motivated by altruism; they are motivated by winning. Where are those $2 in spending cuts for $1 in tax increases the Democrats promised Ronald Reagan? The moderate Democrats negotiated a partial victory out of a defeat. The moderate Republicans negotiated away a win. In politics, as in war, there is no substitute for victory.
The President and majority leader should exact a political price on the political deserters. The Republican party faithful will.
I suppose John McCain is no longer interested in being president.
a lot of us do care.
What good is a majority in the Senate and a republican president if we have to settle for moderates like Souter and Kennedy because seven wimps sold us out to the dems?
FWIW-if Rehnquist, O'Conner, and Stevens retire before '06, given our majority, if they had a freakin' backbone, we should be getting 3 Scalia clones in my opinion!!!!! That's what a majority in the Senate should mean. Not after today though.
Frist and company f*&@$# up this one for sure!
They 1st have to retire, replacing a Republican with a Republican merely perpetuates the current balance.
I'm sitting comfortably ready to listen with baited breath as you enlighten me on the GOP's altruistic motivations for nuclear option.
Really!
On more thing on John McCain ....
If you heard McCain discussing this Deal on TV, he kept saying "I trust these Democrat co-signers" and kept repeating the word "trust" in regards to "extraordinary" circumstance. I think he's drawing the line in the sand to warn Democrats under what events he'll vote for the Constitutional Option.
It can be a win-win for McCain - a win by looking like a moderate and a win by putting his foot down when betrayed by Democrats he trusted.
you know what the motivations are, they've been repeated here many times here and many other blogs and talk radio (powerlineblog.com, hughhewitt.com, belmontclub.blogspot.com, therightcoast.blogspot.com, littlegreenfootballs.com, or listen on the radio to Michael Medved, Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager).
if you don't agree, make your substantive arguments. acting like you don't know what they are makes you look like a trolling idiot.
a minute that I believe the dems will allow Rehnquist or O'Conner to be replaced with liked minded conservatives by Harry Reid and company, you are crazy.
The dems now have the momentum and they will label any nominee GWB puts before them "extreme fanatics", regardless of who they are to replace.
Altruism - Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
Altruism - (zoology) Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.
what the "altruistic" motivations for eliminating the filibuster would be. Nor have I heard such motivations explained here or anywhere else for that matter.
I think most people I know on both sides would admit that this is partisan muscle flexing on both sides. Republican Senators blocked Clinton's judges for an up or down vote, and many Democrats still in office opposed it then. There's very few Senators that I'm aware of (currently in office) that have had a consistent position based on ideology or principle here. Warner and McCain come to mind. Everyone else, as far as I can tell, is trying to exert as much power as possible to influence the future judiciary, and will support whatever position allows them to best use their power.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. But let's call a spade a spade.
because we now have the filibuster. In the event of the Dems calling anyone they feel like Extrordinary circumstances it comes down to a value judgement, but in the event the nuclear option is invoked it's bad faith. One will split the electorate one will uunite it (almost).
surely you know that there is a difference between a majority blocking nominations and a minority blocking nominations
Three real originalists, 6 of everything else. Or which of those 6 do you say is not part of the '5'? Would that be Mr Anthony 'overwhelming weight of international opinion' Kennedy, or perhaps Ms. Sandra 'Planned Parenthood v Casey' O'Connor?
No Clinton nominee with majority support was filibustered.
The filibuster is an honor system, it can be abused but hasn't in the past until this current Senate.
Remember that Scalia was confirmed 98-0. Is an originalist by definition so extreme to the American people that they should be voted down? Of course not, originalists should be the norm, not the exception, leaving decisions to the citizens.
Surely you know that the Clinton nominees I'm taling about were not blocked by a majority of Republicans voting against them in committee or on the floor. Rather they were blocked from having an up or down vote by one man, Sen Hatch, using blue slip rules he subsequently changed with the arrival of Pres. Bush in 2000.
Surely you can smell the stench of hypocrisy there, just as I can smell it in the Democratic Senators that now are doing the same thing (different tactics) they were outraged over when it was their judges being blocked.
It's an unprincipled power struggle by both parties that's now taking place. I'm not saying it's impossible to have an ideological preference, maybe you do-- but you can't have your cake ten years ago and eat it too today.
Either you think all presidential nominees should have an up or down vote, or you don't. It's insincere to say the tactic of filibustering Bush nominees is unacceptable, but the tactic by which a single Senator had veto power over a Clinton nominee is fair game.
Bring back blue slip powers from the 90's and I guarantee you that no Democratic Senator will filibuster another Bush nominee.
You know what folks... I'm going to have to rethink my disappointment over this "deal." Let's look on the bright side: Democrats described the three nominees that will now move forward with every pejorative they could muster only to turn around and set in motion a process leading to their confirmation.
The biggest scaremongers warned of a "theocracy of Christian conservatives" so I say LONG LIVE THE THEOCRACY. LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS!!! WOO HOOOOO!!!
I can't believe those dolts fell for this...
Come on over to Mike's America and let's do some crowing of our own:
http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/
there were any Supreme Court positions available.
I see a lot of counting, but no chickens yet.
as a liberal. I believed the Democrates had everything to gain from a public that perhaps could have gotten the impression of a power grab. A impression, I would have bet on with my knowledge of history, (which is hopefully good enough to be objective) stood a good chance of paying off for the Democrates.
On the other hand if that impression could not have been maintained, then the Dem's might have had a big problem.
That's neither here nor there at this point. However, an agreement that basically says, "ok we'll trust you", certainly remains to be seen if it can hold up against everyone's posible objections. All it takes is one Senator to say, "no I won't go along" and "FILL-HER-BUSTER" anyways to break that agreement. I think I remember President Johnson did that when he was in Congress.
Personally, I am actually sad they did not force the Republican's into the nuclear option, I think it would have been more helpful in the long run for Dem's.
...which Supreme Court Seat is currently vacant?
Biggest collection of "chicken counters" I've seen since the Texas state fair. Difference was, they had eggs to count. But, I think I already mentioned that.
point, written in the artistic style that mixes good reasoning with a chef's knowledge of food.
Fitting, since Nacho is part of his name and that fact I am from El Paso, it's one of my favorite foods.
I too have great distain for "wasteful and tasteless filler". I like it as a campaign slogan though.
but two of your nominees wouldn't make it out of the primary due to their abortion records.
the great invisible pendulum which "is" the checking and balancing machinery of our society instituted by laws based on the Constitution and practiced through our morals and values will always swing back as hard as you push it away.
Experience bares this out for those who have it.
If any "Liberal Congress" should gain control in the future, I feel it is my duty as one of thier supporters to have a greater commitment to country than to them, and make sure I keep them in check if they so attempt to overwhelm the interest of the Republican's and those they represent. These are still American's, and thier interest are important to all of us in that context (more important than the party's power).
The British once bowled over laughing when they heard the concept that George Washington was just going to hand power back to the people after he gained control of the country through military means. They thought that idea was foolish, and that any Colonist that believe it was an even bigger fool.
Yet, here we are, 200+ years later, handing power over to some new potential leader every two or so years. Actually going through a peaceful revolution every 2 years or so.
I believe through the years, some wise men have always kept sight of this initial concept in it's purist form. I have a personal saying for this concept, "If your truly interested in the best interest of the country, then the person you have to distrust the most while involved in politics, power and government, is yourself".
Because in the end, the pendulum will come back, and somehow we must all remian brother's after it's all over for the day.
As strange as it might sound to some, I would never support any party that becomes too powerful. I think it unwise for any American, unless you something other than the interest of the average American at heart.
And, it's never been historically good for the country when we start swinging that pedulum a little too hard.
On the other hand, if the contest for these nominations becomes what is percieved to be a big power struggle for a big power grab, unlike most, I feel that would benefit the Dem's more than the Rep's.
Game, set, and match, they win this round.
- They know nothing about the game of tennis.
- They mix sports metaphors.
- They cannot tell the difference between losing a battle and losing the war.
Pejman's analysis is right on. The hysteria that is running around suggests the nuclear option just went off in the Republican's face. Take it easy people. We'll get our due as the majority continues to grow.
The one party state is still very much within our grasp.
In a stunning turn of events, Senator Byrd has admitted he thought "No Nukes in the Senate" meant no "real" nuclear weapons on the Senate floor.
When ask why he proposed the compromise deal the Senator proclaimed, "Well, you'd have to be an idiot to want nuclear warheads in the Senate." When ask what he meant by that statement Byrd replied "What"?
Quickly wisked away by secret service agents at the advise of his Hollywood political super agent Joe Smear, Senator Byrd was then later found in a Las Vegas alley way behind the historical Frontier Casino, pants down, bottle of tequilla in hand, and babble his limps with his fingers, "bbbbbllbbbbbblllbbbbblllb".
And now we know what really happened.
Re: The one party state is still very much within our grasp.
Would anyone really regard that as a good thing? One party states range from the corrupt and incompetent (Mexico under the old PRI) to the ghastly (Saddam's Iraq, the PRC). A loyal (and viable) opposition is one of the prequisites for a successful and dynamic system of government
Will they be able to crush all opposition to their will, or will it be the American way that prevails? Tune in next time as the Republican's try to parley their new power into the really big political realm of, (Monster truck rally voice) "DICTATORSHIP"!!!
The era of the "New Caesars" is upon us, Middle-Earth, err uhumm, America seems to be doomed.
Hatch was simply using Democrat rules against Democrats ... 54 of George H. W. Bush's judicial nominees were blocked by the Senate Democratic majority and two of his Supreme Court nominees were subjected to intense and extensive character assasination campaigns by the Democrats and their allies on the Left and in the Press. Only one survived by the skin of his teeth ... the other's nomination was withdrawn.
60 of Clinton's nominations were blocked by the Senate Republican majority. Note that this is over two terms and for two of those eight years, Democrats were in the majority. But even when the Republicans took the majority, neither of his Supreme Court nominations had to endure even 1/10th of what the first Bush's nominees went through. None of them was accused of racism, sexism, paedophilia, rape or any other thing GOP judicial nominees, and only GOP judicial nominees, have come to expect as part of the confirmation process.
In other words, you started it.
And I know you wouldn't be able to help yourselves over the next three and a half years. So we're going to finish it.
Hey, do you think there is any chance that these moderates have agreed to vote down some choices in the future? If so, you'll see real GOP anger I think.
Second, this is a pride thing now. I don't think the 14 senators wants their little deal to fail. My fear is that there is a wink-wink thing that will go on. The 14 senators are in effect hijacking the whole process - it is basically up to them to either approve, or contest, future filibusters. So maybe they let one go, one stay, one go, one stay, and on and on. In other words, they agree not to break the deal but instead to horsetrade amongst themselves. That is not fair to the nominees, or us.
I've done this so many times here, I'm tempted just to link to one of them. But it's an important conversation, and since Rush doesn't seem to be telling to whole truth, I will continue to fill in the gaps.
The blue slip is basically formal written approval or disapproval of a nominee. Blue slips are only used by Senator's from the same home state as the nominee-- kind of like an insider's view of the potential judge.
Negative blue slips have never been binding, but in the good ol' days a negative blue slip even across party lines was usually grounds for killing the nominee in committee. In 1995 Sen. Hatch, your one man majority, changed the committee rules. Negative blue slips were still not binding on the committee, but now the new rules stated that both Senators had to return their blue slip for the nominee to receive a vote. For 60+ of Clinton's nominees, Republican Senators had much better things to do than spend five minutes filling out a blue slip. Maybe they kept leaving them at home, or their dog ate them, nobody knows for sure. But in every case the nomination process stalled, and the nominees were effectively prevented from receiving an up or down vote. One single Senator, not a majority, was able to kill a nomination.
Fast forward to 2001. A Democratic Senator from Michigan attempts to use Hatch's blue slip rules, now just 6 years old, to block a Bush nominee. What to do? Well, Hatch simply changed the rules again-- now you only needed one turned in blue slip in order to proceed. Unfortunately for Hatch, the other Michigan nominee soon jumped on board the blocking process. Hatch was forced to change the rules yet again-- which now state that the same blue slip that killed so many Clinton nominees without a vote is nothing more than an informal, outdated and un-needed reccomendation. (Which may be true, but it must taste pretty bitter coming from his mouth).
So, the short version to all this is that you're wrong. Democratic Senators did not "do the same thing" to block HW Bush's nominees-- the rule change that allowed Republican Senators to do it to Clinton happened in '95. If the Dem majority used some other means of preventing nominees from receiving an up or down vote, I have never heard anything of it.
You might be right that it was Dem. majority that started the whole disapproving of Senators trend. I know for most of history, the Senate has been wise enough to reject unqualified members in committee, regardless of partisan lines. Once Senators agree the candidate is qualified, they usually passed with unanimous consent.
But it was your guys that started the whole blocking without an up or down vote thing. So there. ;)
That makes it even more egregious ... even without Hatch's blue slip policy in place, Senate Democrats blocked 54 Bush I nominees, over a single term.
Clinton's 60 nominees were over two terms.
Senate Democrats blocked nominees at a rate nearly 200% that of Senate Republicans.
You started it ... ;)
This is partisan muscle flexing
"Partisan muscle flexing" is exactly what I vote for people to do. When I cast a vote, I am doing my part to send someone to Washington to represent certain views. (If you want someone to represent your views, do your own voting.) And that's the complaint here - not that the Democrats won this round, but - that majority Republicans surrendered.
Quitsies, no anti-quitsies, no startsies. Triple stamped it.
It still goes back to nominees being rejected or approved by will of the majority, which is the recent rallying cry for the Senate Republicans.
In any case, I'm content to give up on who started it-- with the knowledge that there's been rank hypocrisy by Dem and Reps here as evidenced by recent history.
On a related note-- I'm quite happy with last night's compromise, in that I think future debates over nominees will now move away from support for procedural tactics (since the acceptability of the filibuster has been implied) and will now focus on whether or not a candidate is an "extreme" case or not. I think this is much more fertile grounds for the Democrats' arguments.
There is a HUGE difference with Giuliani and Romeny's abortion stance and that of liberals - they want Roe v Wade overturned, they don't think there is a Constitutional RIGHT to an abortion. They'd leave it to the states to decide.
Romeny and Giuliani would achieve the identical result in the end as die hard pro-life candidate - appoint judges that would overturn Roe v Wade and leave it to the states.
Remember, Republicans (and RINOS) winning is most important. All but 2 Supreme Court justices will probably retire in the next 8 years. If Democrats take a lead in Congress or win the Presidency the Supreme Court will be like the looney 9th Circuit in California.
there is no way that McCain will support a movement on confirmation to vote down the President's nominees.
This deal, overall, is productive and support it. But we also have to realize this is an open Presidency in 3 years or so. This was McCain positioning himself for that run.
You can only be "moderate" so long, and still hold a prayer of winning either party's nomination. If he caves, and sides against Bush on the confirmation vote, he is politically "dead". None of the other centrist republicans would even think about casting the deciding vote against the President.
This deal was not all good news, as Frist said. It was far more good news than bad though. And basically, Conservatives gave up nothing in exchange for confirmation on our most opposed picks.
There are 3 Senators who control the process: DeWine, Graham, and Warner. They have all said they are willing to vote for the Nuclear/Constitutional Option if Dems continue with frivolous filibusters. If two of them think the Dems are out of line, they can join the other 48 Republicans. So any judge who is not an "extraordinary circumstance" to 2 of these 3 Senators, is acceptable.
are the winners here IMHO.