Redstate

Watching what you have written over the last several months that I have been reading your entries, I am absolutely amazed at what you have just written. And, buy no means is it my intent to be demeaning or derogatory in any way, but I must say, your the first of those who are very pationate here at RedState too see a more important issue down the road concerning this entire event I think.

I too was becoming amazed at what I once described to Dovers as a "Fools Bait Debate" when the so called "nuclear option" degree was announced. I truly saw no benefit whatsoever in allowing the Democrates to fool and splinter the Republican base and get them posturing in such a way that the public kinda sees this big bully with a tree branch trying to hit a little kid over the head for her candy.

Quite honestly I just watched in amazement and thought, "No way, they would never be that unwise as to take that bait", and they almost did, WOW!!!

Those center moderates you describe many times will vote their gut and have very little, if any party affiliations. This particular group does indeed, in my opinion, have a centered, highly evolved admiration for the checks and balance systems described to them when they were still in gradeschool. There is a sense in all of us, whether Dem's, Rep's, Indy's or other, that we have a higher obligation to that system than any party, it runs in our blood as American's, we sense it's the base of our freedom, and that vein run's deep.

That very large group will mostly defend the tradition no matter what people say about it in the debate.

To see the great risk as you do, I truly believe leaves no doubt in my mind that to your core, you have the ability to be honestly objective without going off on some wild goosechase for an agenda or issue that could not tender any benefit at all. To me, that gives you 25 more years of wisedom than I had previously assumed. Poor assumption.

Trevino I believe you are exactly correct in what you have said here.

And, to be totally honest, I am sad that someone finally saw the cliff before the party took some hard front end damage.

Please Please Please

Do not turn this blog site into a forum for people who have no idea what they are talking about.  Not one thing changed as a result of this DEAL, with the exception that the nonintellectual American voters think that a compromise was reached.  When in truth all responses that were on the table and being used by both parties still stand.  Who pray tell is going to decide when a violation of the agreement has been violated.  The Supreme Court?  Give me a break.  Harry Reid has exceeded Ted Kennedy in the Dumb or Dumber role.  As soon as the Democrats don't like a nominee, they will filibuster, shortly followed by the Republicans threatening to use the Constitutional option. Both sides are being disingenuous.

One very important thing quite obviously has changed: the GOP Senate leadership now has a face-saving out.  And they will take it.

That the same impasse may crop up down the road doesn't change this.

I can vote "conservative".  I can work for "conservative" candidates.  I can contribute to "conservative candidates and causes.

When the "conservatives" win, and it comes down to crunch time, though?  "Oh, dear me.  Let us not stand anywhere near any principles or take any action that would make us look less than 'mainstream' to the WaPo or NYT."

And those of us who worked to put the Republicans in the position they were (past tense, now) in so that they could make something happen?  We just got kicked to the curb again.  If McCain, Snowe, and suchlike are the people who are actually running the Republican Party, they've left me.

And based on this one, they do appear to be the wheel horses now.  The Republican Party just informed me that, having secured my vote for all of these years by hanging the carrot in front of me, they don't plan on giving it to me anyway.

I hope they don't expect me to haul much more of their freight, though.  I can see how it is.

If the Senate is all about face saving and not doing the people's business,  God help us all.

I find myself thinking this morning that public participation in a Republic is not the one-sided benefit we might have imagined.

Thanks to the Internet, there are now armed camps of loud moonbats assembled on both sides of The Big Ditch. Whatever else this is, it is a force pushing toward mob rule... not a good thing.

The fact that we have mobs of approximately equal size pushing in opposite directions does not greatly comfort me. Mobs are scary no matter what they are doing, for they can go off in bizarre directions at any moment.

At the height of the Schiavo frenzy, I was stunned to see the number of people who were ready to take, erm, extra-legal action to do what God would do if God had all the facts. At one point in the proceedings, some Militia Nut in Wisconsin or someplace was talking about sending his 'troops' down to liberate Mrs. Schiavo. There were people I previously thought sane who were cheering at this news.

The worst part of it was, a lot of this pitchforking was coming from ignorance. This wasn't just a mob, it was an ignorant mob, which is the scariest kind. The speed with which these people turned on, and vowed to stab, Governor Jeb Bush — who had done virtually everything anyone could ask, within the law, to accommodate them — was hard to watch. But he would not assume dictatorial control over the State's enforcement machinery, and for this he was a lout and a brigand. This while some of the most egregiously bad lawyering ever seen on Earth was taking place right under their noses. And for this they blamed the courts, and the judges.

Now we see some of the same stuff here, and on both sides.

I try to be mindful of the fanatic's role in history, and so participate in a certain amount of fanatacism myself, as a way of adding to the wind blowing in my direction. But what I'm learning is that I have to be equally mindful of the Law of Large Numbers, which ought to tell me that when the wind reaches hurricane force, the average IQ of the blowers will be 100, and the place will be full of dull normals in possession of torches and pitchforks. And so I need to go back and re-assess this Internet Activism thing, and ask myself just where this is headed. "Off a cliff" is not what I had in mind.

Yesterday I saw a poll result which told me that "a deal" was going to happen. The poll itself is bogus — it's that CNN one taken among adults, and over a weekend — in the sense that we can't trust the absolute numbers. But the one result I do trust (and believe is showing up in the parties' private polls as well) is that neither side was winning this thing. It was coming off as a bunch of spoiled children on both sides staging a tantrum, and so the loser was "Congress in General."

So I figured that while Frist and Reid would publicly continue to wave the bloody shirt for their respective Mobs of Moonbats, both of them would be conspiring behind the scenes to "make this go away."

And so it did.

And now I think the rest of us have to ask ourselves what role we are playing in creating an environment where this becomes the only way out.

I fear we might be caught in a classic "Prisoner's Dilemma" game here. If either side stops throwing gas on the fire, but the other guys keep fanning their flames, the other guys win. And so both sides continue to stoke the fires, until all is consumed.

Well, the largest egos have prevailed.  The comity of the House of Lords remains intact.

Please note that the issue was not judicial nominations.  Quite simply, the Lords and Ladies didn't want some backwoods cowboy and those unwashed hicks tell THEM what should be done.  Look for representatives of the new Quorum of the Twelve to visit the fawning media outlets to bestow some wisdom and blessing this weekend.

Can Sainthood be far behind?

Seolach

How can we reasonably expect Reid's personal (and lukewarm would be appropriate here) beliefs on abortion to manifest as policy in the Senate?

The right-wing zealots over at the Washington Post saw this exactly the way I did:

The bipartisan negotiators, who signed a two-page "memorandum of understaidng," have the votes both to prevetn judicial filibusters without banning them and to defeat efforts to invoke the nuclear option, regardless of the views of their Democratic and GOP colleagues, the White House and outside groups on the left and right. The action represent an unusual attempt to wrest power from the leadership.

We've gone from being run by 45 senators to being run by 14. I would have preferred the way it was before this deal went through.

with your views here, other than (minor quibble) I would not altogether characterize Iraq as a "disaster". But far too much drama was expended on this matter, and we shoud lall hope that nothing calamitous occcurs with the economy or the War on Terror in the next few months since the government (meaning the majority party) will then stand under the accusation of having fiddled while Rome burned.

above was meant in response to the diary item itself not to Nachos' words.

I had to read that post twice to make sure I understood you correctly.

I don't have much to add other than the deal is certainly not viewed uniformly as a Democratic victory.  Not everybody over at Kos was doing the Ewok dance after the compromise was announced.  But I can't agree with your premise that maximalism is unhealthy for the body politic, and that we've wasted quite a bit of time on lower priority issues, and not just because of Republican leadership.  The Democrats have not been effective at holding the Republicans to the course, and have often added to the misdirection with their own pet issues.  But bravo for calling a spade a spade.  

Now I'm just waiting for someone to accuse you of trying to be a media darling....

Since the RNC had threatened any Republican dissenter with no/little support during their re-election, maybe the moderate boys decided to push back. Only compromise and respect for the minority prevailed and not strong armed extortion.
I am not proud of the words of Harry Reid during all this. As a matter of fact, the leadership of both parties seems to have lost vision of the best interests of the country.

"Dissent is the purist form of Patriotism"

Of course, the best possible outcome would have been for this to never have been made an issue at all: the President was having a fair number of his nominees pushed through, and there was not, to my mind, any particularly unusual Democratic obstructionism underway. Certainly it was annoying to see particular nominees held up on procedural grounds: but really, folks, welcome to the United State Senate.

While I agree with many of your points, the implication that what this event represented was not an unusual degree of obstructionism, historically speaking, simply does not stand.  Anyone with a full knowledge of the history of Judiciary Committee can shoot that down in a second.  

Blue slips do not equate to full bore Senate filibusters, and but for the restraint of the more moderate members of the caucus, there is a laundry list of nominees from 1992-2000 who would have been filibustered on the floor had such action been - in the minds of the GOP leadership - constitutional.

Only the most hardened left continues to make that historical argument with a straight face.  The mainstream Senators on the Democratic side conceded that talking point a long time ago.

"For the moment, all we can do is cross our fingers, thank God that the Senate Democrats have a pro-life leader to take the sting out of defeat, and hope that the much-reviled "moderates" can, on occasion, save us from ourselves."

I cannot believe anyone that calls themselves a Republican wrote that. I just can't.

Strong leadership, based on principle, is why we are in the majority now (see George W Bush). I am glad the filibuster is saved, because gutless pandering and lack of leadership will put us in the minority very soon.

Either you have the majority and you lead, despite the whining, or you don't. Moderates are good for absolutely nothing but grabbing headlines - just wait till one tries to run for President. You, and they, will see.

I can hear it now "I am against abortion personally, but I will do everything in my power to make sure it stays the law of the land."

If Reid is a pro-lifer, then I am a donut. Wait, that sounds familiar...oh well.

"can't agree more with your premise...."

side here in virtually all particulars save that Frist is no longer a serious contender in 2008.

This was a case of a tie, if not defeat, being snatched from the jaws of rout.

On the positive side, it is difficult to imagine the Democrats not applying the "extraordinary circumstances" clause to any Supreme Court nominee to the right of Ruth Bader Ginsburg so hopefully we will get a chance to revisit the Grand Bargain after some of the seven who signed on realize that last night they were told "I'll love you forever and your check is in the mail."

Pretty much have to disagree with you wholesale here, mon ami.

This "maximalist" vision was about one thing, and one thing only. This battle, from both sides, from the start, four years ago, was about one thing, and one thing only. It wasn't about the interpretation of the Commerce Clause, or the application of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, or the Voting Rights Act, or whether the Supremacy Clause applies to health insurance nominally similar to ERISA plans but issued by the State of Arkansas.

This has been a proxy war over Supreme Court appointments, and Roe, Casey, and their dark progeny. The rest, while interesting, and possibly tangentially important, are not what have the trillion acronyms pouring sums of time and treasure into this battle.

And from the Republican side, this has become about holding the party line -- a little thing we used to call "Party discipline," back in the day -- for those inevitable Supreme Court nominees. Now, thanks to John Saint McCain, there is no party discipline. The cherished, hallowed, constantly-changing-but-never-mind-that freaking filibuster is preserved so that some future Republican can send a piece of paper up to the presiding officer and indicate his profound disagreement with Subsection 5 of the Omnibus Spending Bill Robert Byrd's Brain (still D-WV), in its special glass jar, has pushed through -- oh, and so we, stupid, brainless, easily led "values voters" or "voters of faith" can keep getting strung along with the promise that the whole abortion edifice will be knocked down. Just not now. Maybe 2011? Is that ok?

Mark me on this: We were just sold down the river. Because now, when a Supreme Court nominee who will demolish Roe, who will replace Sandy Windvane O'Connor, comes before the Senate, and Ted "Catholic for One Hour on Sundays Only" Kennedy begins his enactment of this much-hallowed, all-be-freaking-praised tradition, this group of losers will not say, "Well, the Democrats are in their right to filibuster here, because this nominee opposes Roe." Heavens no. That'll lose the stupid sheep who vote in the national primaries and upon whom they rely for millions of $20 and $30 donations. No, they'll say, "The Democrats are in their right here because this guy believes in natural law, and that's outside the mainstream," or "This lady opposes affirmative action, and that's outside the mainstream," or "She once wrote a law review article indicating that Congress's Interstate Commerce power is limited where four-trailer trucks are concerned," or somesuch nonsense.

And so instead of one of the nominees about whom I, and, let's be honest, one heck of a lot of voters cared so much when we registered our ballots, we get Souter. Again. Because the Party won't be able to impose discipline on the "moderates." So not one appointee who'll actually do what we demanded -- the only thing we demanded in return for our votes -- makes it to the bench.

I'm a conservative, and a Catholic. I'm simply in love with tradition (and Tradition). But a tradition that provides cover for the continued slaughter of millions is not worth preserving, especially one that's been susceptible to change since its inception.

In the last election, I gave money I simply didn't have to Republican Senate candidates just so I could see the whole edifice of death knocked back one peg. I didn't expect a Human Life Amendment. I didn't expect Congressmen to grow a pair anywhere it counted. All I expected was that the jellyfish in the Senate would go to war over two or three appointees to the Court. Period. And now that won't happen. Period.

Who'll rally the moderates now? John "Those Pro Life Folks Creep Me Out" McCain? Please. He knows what the Party as a whole knows, but which they might have been willing to overlook just this once: That the instant Roe and its dark band are in the ground, so is the unswerving commitment of sheep like me to the national Party. Toss him aside. Oh, sure, when the Straight Talk Express II: The Wrath of the Edgar-Suit makes its way across the country starting in two years, he'll decry the latest Supreme Court ruling that requiring a physical exam before providing a second-trimester abortion runs afoul of the vital liberty interest enunciated in Casey.

To Hell with the war, the debt, the dollar, the deficit, hallowed Senate tradition, and everything else. Legalized abortion on demand just got another ten years of life. Ten million more dead for a Senate "tradition." Mark me on this.

Not. One. More. Penny.

Well, well put. We have the Senate, the House, the Presidency and we still cannot control the preeners or govern effectively.

I wish LBJ would come back as a Republican and handle this Senate garbage...

What I wish I could have written, were I not so apoplectic this morning.

There is no way to put enough Maybelline on this pig, we were rolled.

Would that I was possessed of the eloquence to phrase it that politely, too.

It's hard for me to comment much, because most of my potential commentary wouldn't be particularly suitable for posting here.

I am wondering, though.  Is Frist French?  He surely managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory here.  And stood there grinning and waving the official white flag.  

The whole Republican side of the Senate looks awfully Froggish to me right now, though.

I have to say I'm split on Josh's piece.  I agree and at the same time disagree.  I was in favor of scrapping the filibuster for judges.  At the same time I can see that in the future the Dems could have an advantage because of it.

As well, I do agree that should this have happened, the Senate leadership would have felt like they had done all they needed to do for conservatives and would do no more.

I guess where I get off Trevino's train (I like the sound of that) is on the slippery slope argument -- scrapping the judicial filibuster would scrap it everywhere.  Perhaps that was my lawschool training where my torts professor drilled in to us that the two most common meritless arguments in law are the "it will open the floodgates" argument and the "slippery slope" argument.  Scrapping the judicial filibuster, I do not think, leads to scrapping the filibuster completely.

I remain torn in my opinion.  I do agree that this scraps Frist's candidacy, and that makes the deal worth it.

First, in the inds of many of us who regard ourselves as social conservatives first and foremost, this is a kick in the teeth, a knee to the groin, and a pat on the butt accompanied by an admonition to take one for the team.  What team?  A team that regards social security reform as more pressing than even a few degrees of retardation of what we like to term the judicial usurpation of normal politics?  Please.  Social security has about as much moral resonance as which car I drive to work this morning; judicial usurpation has everything to do with the nature and character of our nation and its ostensible status as a republic.  Do we want a republic, or an American analogue of the unaccountable Brussels eurocracy?  THAT'S the issue.  Do we govern ourselves through our representatives, or will every meaningful issue be decided, as by oracle, from some bench, somewhere?

And on this question, the Republicans elected to punt.  Go to the back of thee bus, social conservatives, just be sure to write your checks and pull the levers for us come election day.  Anyone else tired of being regarded in the way the Dems seem to regard the African-American vote: you've got nowhere else to go, so you have to tolerate betrayal upon betrayal upon perfidy upon treachery?

And the remarks about maximalism?  This, even more than the other defenses of the betrayal, are what rubs salt in the wounds this morning.  Maximalism?  As in "my way or the highway"?  Who is saying that?  Social conservatives, who want just a little movement on some of their issues?  Or all of these defenders of "vaunted traditions" who want to have everything: their judicial picks AND the preservation of a tradition - a fricking procedure! - that will disappear as soon as the Dems find it expedient to consign it to the ashbin to which we ought to have sent it, rather than continuing as an option against the next Ginsburg-foreign-law-trumps-the-constitution type?  

And those arguments about how abolition of the judicial filibuster imperils the legislative filibuster!  How, exactly?  This is a ridiculous argument coming from anyone concerned to uphold the traditions of the Senate, which for 200 friggen' years allowed the latter and not the former!  If the traditions made the distinction before, they can continue to make it, so called "logic" be damned.  

And,, please, let us have no unctious rhetoric about holding the Dems' feet to the fire on this deal.  We need to disabuse ourselves of the useless and maleficent illusion that the consistency or inconsistency of our electoral foes matters.  It does not; it never has and it never will.  What matters is the perception of WHY they are consistent or inconsistent at any one moment: the ends and objectives which inspire and justify their maneuvers.  This matter is inside baseball to 75% of the electorate, so the only perception that matters is that of the bases of the parties: the Dems will filibuster now to protect Roe and Casey; Republicans, in theory, in some alternate or possible world, can break the filibuster now and try to resurrect it later in order to rein in the lunacies of the judiciary.  Procedure is a tool, not the substance of policy, and by treating it as something sacred, we ensure that we will continue to take the shaft and have our scalps taken.  We can learn this machiavellian lesson or continue losing.  Forever.

the filibuster is not allowed on budgetary bills and it is not allowed when voting in conjunction with the War Powers Act. So this is hardly a slippery slope.

Ideally, internet activism would help at least transform an ignorant mob into a knowledgeable one. Then, armed with information, people could (in theory at least) evaluate for themselves where they stand. Of course, some sites are more aware than others of the difference between imparting knowledge and talking points, RS IMHO usually being among the best in this regard.

Thank you so much for writing so passionately and yet eloquently.  Sadly for me, I did not hear of this surrender (I'm sorry, "compromise") until I was in the car and driving to work this morning and am therefore recovering from nearly driving into a bridge abutment.

BTW, for the economic conservatives out there who may not be moved as Thomas is regarding abortion, see this as the expansion of "affirmative action" and other anti-Constitutional affronts for another decade and see if that gets your knickers in a twist.

If Pat Buchanan (on the Imus in the Morning program today - which is precisely when I heard of this "deal") is to be believed, we had 51-votes for the Byrd Option as of yesterday (Monday) morning.  Thus, we had victory - the restoration of the Constitutional treatment of nominees and the return of 214-years of Presidential prerogative toward Article II appointments.  With that in mind, to suggest that this surrender (sorry again, "compromise") is anything short of a full-blown retreat on those principles is to be in denial, plain and simple.

Therefore, John McCain has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory - and I (a Massachusetts resident) will if necessary spend the entire winter of 07-08 in New Hampshire reminding Republican primary voters of that very fact.  I will remain a registered republican only so long as doing so will allow me to help defeat McCain in the primaries - then I'm out - for good.

In the meanwhile, the GOP will not get one more hour of my uncompensated labor, they will not get one more phone call on behalf of some candidate I've never heard of, they will not benefit from any letters to the editor, they will not receive a single recruit on my behalf, and yes - not another penny of my hard-earned and over-taxed money.  Not.  One.  Penny.  More.

I can't get past the idea that it was a mistake to compromise on this at all. If Saad and Myers were such poor choices, they can be debated on the floor and voted down as necessary. Clearly, there are enough willing defectors from the party line to assure that much. In the meantime, we've gained almost nothing.

The only upsides I can see that wouldn't have occurred if the constitutional option were exercised are the preservation of the filibuster (probably until the next Democratic majority, actually, if not sooner, when the inevitable judicial filibuster happens) and that this really ought to dispel the bizarre myth that the Republican party has any crafty Machiavels in leadership at all.

If this is a victory, it just might be a Pyrrhic one.

Truly, this is the best analysis of the whole mess I've read here.

You must surely understand why it must be so, Gengisdon.  Conservatives have lived under their thumb in essence since 1933, and having risen to power in the last 11 years, we find we have no REAL power as long as the imperial judiciary still trumps our every move. So as long as one stone lies upon another......

But better to lose to him -- and I use "lose" in the sense employed by the supporters of this boondoggle -- than the alternatives.

I cannot believe anyone that calls themselves a Republican wrote that.

I prefer "conservative" to "Republican," thanks.

Strong leadership, based on principle, is why we are in the majority now (see George W Bush).

Oh, good God.  Really.

Moderates are good for absolutely nothing but grabbing headlines - just wait till one tries to run for President.

You certainly could use some disabusing about the current occupant of the White House.

All that is required in response is to point out that any connection drawn between this fight and the fight against Roe v. Wade is a non sequitur.  Believe me, as I said in the post -- if I thought this was really about a decisive pro-life blow, I would have been behind it.  It was not: it was an overreaching power play that deserved its end.

Sorry, but you are far, far, far too optimistic about the party leadership here.

....many of us who regard ourselves as social conservatives first and foremost, this is a kick in the teeth, a knee to the groin, and a pat on the butt accompanied by an admonition to take one for the team.

Yes, I know.  And that's a real pity, especially considering how only now, in the fifth year of the Administration, are you (collectively, not you personally) waking up to the fact that that's pretty much all you're getting -- or have ever gotten.

Do we want a republic, or an American analogue of the unaccountable Brussels eurocracy?

The demonization of the judiciary in this manner has got to stop.  It is immensely stupid that we are refighting the battles of the 1790s, with ourselves in the roles of the Jeffersonian democratic absolutists -- suspicious of judges and republican institutions.

"overreaching power play"

I agree with the bulk of your argument, but no one should have any illusions about what has historically and constitutionally been the standard operating procedure for judicial nominees for more than two hundred years.  

Attempting to enforce this standard  may have been pursued in the wrong way (as I believe it has been), but one side is focused on defending the historical standard here, and one side is not.

not social conservatives.  Republicans have been in power for 11 years.  The Republican party has 55 votes in the Senate, not social conservatism.  Parties are not single-issue voters.  It was not the judiciary that "trumped" your move here.

Perhaps it is time to sharpen the long knives...we've got the welcome center set up over in our tent...

for the compliment.

Obviously I defer to you in your familiarity with Senate procedure.  However, if what the Democrats were doing was according to the rules of the Senate, I find it irrelevant that they may have applied those rules in a novel manner.  It's still an option that was -- and is -- open to all.

Well, at least it is no longer Reid's call on the filibuster.  It is now in the hands of Landrieu, Nelson, Salazar, and Pryor who all face red state voters in their elections.  That alone will lower the incidents of filibusters along with the higher (or the original) bar of "extraordinary circumstances."  I'm willing to see if this was able to put the filibuster back where it was wrt to nominees: very rarely used.

Were it so... a welcome tent... I'll believe it when I see it.  Specifically when someone denounces his statement that "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for."  Nice welcome tent.

I hate to disagree with you, but Landrieu and Pryor are not up again until 2008 and Salazar isn't up until 2010.

I seriously doubt any of them is concerned about facing "red" voters and are more concerned about getting more "deep blue" money by preserving the filibuster.

Pryor and Landrieu will have tough races in 2008 and it always helps them to be able to argue they are fighting for "moderation" in the Senate.  Ditto the Maine ladies and the Ohioans.

I think they all keep their re-elections in mind.

why on earth? So we give more cover to a party that holds in its platform the principle that innocents don't matter - and are to be simply tossed aside as a manner of convenience? I think not.

That ax has got be getting dull it's been ground so much.  He certainly didn't say he hates former Republicans and what they stand for.  I think Dean has retracted/clarified that statement since it was made - you can even see that in the lovely post on RedState mocking him for mistakenly saying OBL when he meant Hussein.  Anyway, it's a mountain out of a molehill and reflective of the low level of political discourse we have to suffer through these days.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I know someone will) - but which nominees from the White House do you feel substandard, that wouldn't be a gain in the cause of life to see on the bench?

that Graham has one of these, too.

So we're wrong to argue and organize around the principle that hard core leftwing judges doing from the bench what Democrats failed to do at the ballot box?

Ceratinly Pryor and Landrieu will have tough races (Landreiu barely survived in 02 and I'm sure she took notice of Vitter's 1st ballot win last year) - but then why did they agree to take your marching orders from Teddy Kennedy (i.e.: sign-up for the filibuster) in the first place?

And while I'll grant you the RINOs from ME, I doubt that DeWine and Georgie are nearly as vulnerable in OH as any of the Demos are in the Red States.

And, I might add, the constitution.  Which obviously overrules the Senate rules, which frankly, consist primarily of traditions.

That is what the debate was all about, in policy terms: whether we ought to follow the constitution or not.  It was simply an unprecedented situation.  It is fine to say that an option is open, but saying it does not make it so.

I have always known this; I only fell prey to the illusion that, perhaps, things would change as we repeatedly delievered the mail for the party.  Guess I was wrong.

I'm not going to take lectures on the proper manner of addressing the judiciary; what has to stop in this country is the unnatural and inordinate deference accorded the judiciary, regardless of the nature and content of the decisions they render.  Courts that conjure, from the nothingness of pure theory, rights hitherto inconceivable, cite foreign law and precedent, and annouce themselves the arbiter of the national conscience, such that, were they to reverse even a decision so baldly risible as Roe, we would no longer understand ourselves as a people, have lost the claim upon our respect.  It is immensely stupid that vast swathes of the Republican Party, and even the Conservative movement itself, continue to proceed as though there is something natural and even virtuous in the present arrangement, whereby judges can remove from democratic deliberation any issue which comes to resonate with the fevered delusions of the cultural left.  It is stupider still that some apparently believe this to be so inevitable that we may as well go along to get along.

Does our Constitutional system envision the present role of the courts?  No?  Then let us dispel the superstition of judicial supremacy.  Yes?  Is that a bug or a feature? If the former, let's fix it; if the latter - welcome to the left.  That's their philosophy.  

And please, don't accuse me of suspicion of republican institutions; nothing in the jurisprudence of the modern judiciary to which I object is an outgrowth of republican institutions as established at the Founding.  If they are, then the living constitution must be the real one, and we must be obliged to reverence its oracles.  But asking me, and others, to speak more reverently of  courts which either deform our system or persistently act against the interests we seek to vindicate in law - this, I humbly submit, you have no right to ask.

the judiciary is immune from criticism?

If you are willing to take to position that Roe and a dozen other cases were anything less than judicial overreach you are welcome to it. But transmuting criticism of a branch of government into "demonization" and awarding the status of philosopher-kings to distinctly political appointees is a bit much.

Quite honestly, if we aren't willing to fight to bring the judiciary into line then nothing else that matters is going to happen.

....being more pro-life than Republican at bottom, I prefer to encourage the ascent of pro-lifers in all parties.  Just a personal preference, of course.

....that it was worth it for the pro-life cause to shoot its bolt here, rather than on a Supreme Court appoointment.  That's the real question.

is that you call judges like Souter and O'Conner hardcore leftwingers.

But only if it matters, and isn't used simply as a fig leaf to do more damage.

I agree with this posting. Frist and company got outmanuvered. 14 people , who if they stick together will run the Senate.

Frist should have called the bluff, given the Dems a secret ballot anything to show that Reid and company did not have the stroke.

He gave up to much and got smacked down as the  top dog.

Though whether Reid's personal conscience on the matter is going to have any sway on him as leader has yet to be seen.

Unfortunately, he appears to be in the pocket of NARAL thus far.  Ugh.

I have no problem attacking and countering left-wingers in any position.  It is when those attacks advance arguments that the legitimate powers of the judiciary per se are morally wrong and must be curbed that we've gone badly wrong.  And frankly, we've been in that territory for some time.

This was an argument supposedly settled in the Founders' era.  Thinking back, it has only been reopened when Andrew Jackson decided he wanted to exterminate some Indians; when Southern racists chafed at being forced to behave in a civilized manner; and when FDR decided he wanted total control to remake American society.  It is to our discredit that we've reopened it again.

It matters more.  Filibustering a judicial nominee is ahistorical and unconstitutional.  But filibustering a Supreme Court nominee takes a whole new level of gall on the part of the pro-choice left (which, btw, includes 3 of the 7 "mavericks").  

And if the nominee is solid and above reproach, there is no question in my mind that the Supreme Court is the point to have this fight.

Comparing current work to reform or reign in the judiciary by doing what we can to get pro-life judges on the bench to your litany of horrific examples is offensive.

I have always known this; I only fell prey to the illusion that, perhaps, things would change as we repeatedly delievered the mail for the party.  Guess I was wrong.

Yes.  But I would submit that you'd still be wrong even in the absence of this deal.

....what has to stop in this country is the unnatural and inordinate deference accorded the judiciary, regardless of the nature and content of the decisions they render.

I don't think anyone is arguing that.  We should, though, restrict our attacks to that "nature and content" rather than seek to change the very role of the judiciary itself.

It is immensely stupid that vast swathes of the Republican Party, and even the Conservative movement itself, continue to proceed as though there is something natural and even virtuous in the present arrangement, whereby judges can remove from democratic deliberation....

I am unaware of any issue which any judge has removed from democratic deliberation.  On what are we being silenced?

There would be no filibuster.

I believe they are doing this on principle.  Maybe that isn't a popular view right now, but I feel the only reasonable explanation is that they want to keep the filibuster around but limit its usage and they expect this deal to do that.  If the Dems start abusing it again, then they have the leverage to stop it.

I'm not up for a witchhunt on them.  If they cow in the face of a Dem filibuster on a mainstream Scalia-like SC nominee, then they have lost my support.  Call me an optimist; I'm not too upset by this.

Sorry, but those are really not the same thing as enforcing the constitutional standard on nominees.  Really, they aren't.

judicial powers were exercised in the holdings of Roe, Casey and Lawrence, for starters?

because we are in favor of limiting the power of the judiciary?

Okay. Whatever. Sign me up. If you want to equate the fight against abortion to the Indian Removal Act and the fight against desegregation that is your prerogative and I'll plead guilty in this instance.

I'm surprised we haven't started arguing that there must be a check on the judiciary for "checks and balances" to mean anything.  They have a free ride right now.  That line of argument would be more effective than the "down with the judges" stuff we've been using recently.

....Constitution II.2.2, I'm not seeing anything that would contradict the Constitution in the Democrats' actions.  What am I missing?

This is not about "maximist" principles, this is about the rights of the majority.

This took place for one reason, unprecedented obstructionism from the minority.  

This wasn't a good faith debate about the qualifications of judges.  This was a fractured and tattered minority party trying to do anything it can to make the winner pay.  Typical lefty mindset, don't let the free market, voters in this case, decide the course of action.  

This wasn't Bill Frist or the Republican's deciding out of the blue to do this.  It was a reaction to a perversion of constitutional authority by the minority.

The fact that this point is forgotten, and somehow the Republican's are to blame, tells me this round was loss.

As for moderates, they did a great job of insuring that no one wins, and this problem is put off for a few weeks until a Supreme Court opening is available.  

I think Scrappleface had this best- it's nice that we now have a Congress that requires a "super-duper majority" to get anything done.

you are right to assert that I would still be wrong about the possibility of the Party taking seriously those of us who put it in power.  If so, why should be continue to care?

Yes, we are arguing about unnatural deference precisely because the content of those egregious decisions entails an elevated conception of the judiciary - one that takes it far beyond the role envisioned for it in our system of government.  The judiciary HAS taken on a new role by delivering such abominations as Roe, Casey, Grutter, Lawrence, and whatever that decision was that cited foreign law as a reason for abolishing the death penalty for juvenile offenders.  So we can't shuck this debate off into the trash.  It's here.

As to issue removed from democratic deliberation, see the above decisions and ponder their implications for lawmaking.  Or is democratic deliberation nothing more than mere blather, never intended to actually change the freaking laws!?

I would only add that SCOTUS is the only institution that can -- realistically speaking -- make a lasting difference in this cause.

It's the historical company we're in.  Offended?  Good.

The democrats appoint all the appellate judges then - they don't matter. But this fight over process would have covered SCOTUS, too.

I'm talking about anti-judicial (per se) rhetoric, not this.

The Constitution specifically lists the areas where it requires a two-thirds majority or other qualification for votes.  Such a listing is in the same section for instance, under treaties; where such a requirement is not in place, the Constitutional standard is a simple majority vote.  It has been that way for 200 years.

The Democrats' action is thus extraconstitutional, and also outside the rules for cloture debate on nominees that have stood for more than half the history of the body.

If you want to equate the fight against abortion to the Indian Removal Act and the fight against desegregation....

Purely your own conflation, Streiff.

It was your intention to make a silly argument in order to cement your credentials as the Christopher Hitchens of RedState?

By all means, well done. We can agree/disagree on the wisdom of this fight over process - but if you want to just throw grenades, have at it.

I had previously assumed that the difference between the judiciary's powers and its actions would be fairly easily grasped.

Okay, I misunderstood.

But I do not think I am alone in that misunderstanding.

The more inefficient, slow, nonproductive and gridlocked any government institution is -- excepting the armed forces -- the better off the country is.

I like snowdays in Washington. But not always - for instance, when Brad Smith leaves the FEC, I want the Senate to confirm a good replacement right quick.

....where such a requirement is not in place, the Constitutional standard is a simple majority vote.

Where the 2/3 majority is not specified, it does not follow that simple majority is specified.  It isn't.  Furthermore, the houses of the legislature are given the power to set their own rules.

I think you're on firm ground here that this is unprecedented.  But the unconstitutional bit doesn't appear to wash.  Extraconstitutional, I think, is a bit of a red herring in the absence of that.

then can you explain?

Thinking back, it has only been reopened when Andrew Jackson decided he wanted to exterminate some Indians; when Southern racists chafed at being forced to behave in a civilized manner; and when FDR decided he wanted total control to remake American society.  It is to our discredit that we've reopened it again.

Now I'll admit to being the product of an intellectual double-whammy by both going to school in the South and being an infantryman, but it seems to me that mine is a logical interpretation or you have inflicted an extremely long non-sequitur.

Who's arguing that we should cede everything but the SCOTUS?

This was simply an unwise and unnecessary choice of battles.

What is not grasped as easily is how criticizing judicial overreach is "demonizing" and how kowtowing to the least representative, responsive, or responsible branch of the federal government is a virtue.

If you want to argue that you're not in the unproud tradition enumerated above, by all means, do so.  It ought, at the least, give pause.

I'll wait here.

Unconstitutional -- or against the wishes of the judiciary -- or not.  The issue is one of political capital and courage in addition to the principle of judicial review (which, look, we do not want to undermine).

Sorry, but you're arguing with a much bigger legal powerhouse than me on this.  The opinion you offer is inconsistent with legal intrepretation that's been in use nearly since Marbury.

For instance: Robert Bork (right), Antonin Scalia (right), C. Boyden Gray (right), Lloyd Cutler (left), Michael Gerhardt (left), Lawrence Tribe (left), and 90% of the Federalist Society (right).

I think the judges should have had a up or down vote. Judges are absolutely notorious for not doing what those who appoited them wanted them to do regardless of what party or affiliation they came from. You may have researched enough to find the names, election times and some past and present stands on issues, but once lifetime immunity is granted, many of the most hard core so called Liberal and Republican judges end up doing exactly what "they" want to do regardless, because no one can do anything about it at that point.

I don't believe that the party's can stack the courts as much as they like to think they can or even close since these people have virtually no one to answer to once the position is granted and that's the way it was intended to be.

One thing Judges have over any party affiliation or personal beliefs, and that is to remain objective regardless of how they feel personally and act according to what is best for the nation and the individual rights and freedoms of those individual.

I think your wasting enourmous amounts of energy and time for something that most likely will not turn out your way even if you get everything you want, the judges themselves will most likely still betrayed your aspirations.

So it has been, so it will remain. Because trevino is wise and strong enough to understand his particular view on why this battle is wasteful, does not make him wrong, just seemingly at odds with what others seem to want, but he seems to be seeking the same thing in a more wise manner.

Since on its face it makes soooo much sense to compare the fights today with racists and ethnic cleansers. I'm done with you today, Josh.

By all means, feel free to debate Judge Bork on the issue.  I just tend to find him rather convincing as a legal scholar.

I'm a product of it as well, and 12Bs aren't much brighter than infantry.

In any case, it's not a non sequitur: I bring it up to illustrate that historically, there's been no good reason to do this.  This ought, I would assume, give us some pause in considering whether we are the first in two centuries of American history to find a great reason to roll back the long-established powers of the judiciary.

But we're not talking about that (whatever it is you're defining as "judicial overreach" here).  We're talking about the rhetorical assault on the very principle of judicial review.  This is, I assume, something we should not do.

Guess I'll look it up somewhere else.

you post where I disagree is in that this fight was either wasteful or about judges.

The fight has turned out to be damaging to us because of the defection of seven nominal Republicans. But the fight was much larger than judges, it was about what power the minority party has to block the majority party from governing.

that illigitimate holdings of unconstitutionality render such laws acts of peeing against the wind?  Who decides, then?  The Courts?  Then democratic politics, on abortion and the other issues alluded to, is meaningless.  The Congress?  Then a little "bullying", as you would have it, of the judiciary must take place.

Yes, we do want to undermine judicial review in certain cases.  Laws such as those overturned by the decision I have mentioned should have been presumed constitutional, and been held to be so, because nothing in prior constitutional interpretation would have permitted rulings against them.  The Court, therefore, ought not have had the "power" to review them, only to punt the issue.  

Make the distinction all you want, but, logically, if the Court had the power, authority, legitimately, to render these decisions, then all cavilling about the outcomes amounts to politics, not a debate over the judiciary.  Which is a clever way of saying that Courts can do anything they want, but we cannot debate the scope of their powers, only disagree with them when we don't like - politically - the outcome.  Cynical and question-begging.  

I have yet to hear conservative mob screaming that Marbury was wrongly decided. Your comfort with Roe does not match mine, but I suppose the disagreement there is merely over judicial review and not over 800,000 babies each year.

But not wishing to be in the company of, as Mike says, racists I, too, will flee the field.

That roughly the past thirty years have marked a distinct and clear expansion of judicial authority into areas of lawmaking, that were in decades prior left to the legislature and the people?

....it probably suits your purpose to take umbrage at a purely imaginary conflation of the pro-life cause and the pro-racism cause.  Because that way, you don't have to address the actual issue at hand, which is that the pro-life cause (I'll be charitable and use that phrase instead of "the pro-power grab cause") is adopting the same anti-judicial rhetoric and arguments as some truly detestable movements in American history.

Now, in a sane atmosphere, this would cause one to wonder whether our actions might not cause more harm than good.  One might also wonder whether we ought to assault what was a demonstrable historical bulwark against those evils.  One might further wonder whether the purported end (again, being charitable, the instalment of some judges) is worth the price.

That is, of course, in a sane atmosphere.

As you should well know. I remember having to play the optimist on a certain day in November, and swearing never to do that again. It's why I was amazed they'd managed to hold that herd of cats together as long as they had.

I rather think that the fight over Roe is hardly unrelated to this. If we cannot muster the muscle to win over some appellate judges, we stand precisely no chance come a SCOTUS appointee. Or do you think they'll develop the parts needed to go to war when the stakes are higher? That belies everything I've ever seen about Republican Senators.

I think you're too optimistic about the non-leadership. Any chance we had at bucking Roe just died.

....is, of course, still happening quite well.