Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, May 23, 2005.
looks like frist got what he wanted.
I wonder what will happen next, of course now the Republicans have the Democrats where they want them, now when they filibuster or threaten to do one, they will be called extremists, and this compromise now makes a promise that the Dems may be uncomfortable with. It might have been better for the Dems to drag this out and make the republicans look like the power grabbers.
where's the deal? weak showing, dems
Doesn't seem like much of a compromise. But the real fight is over the Supreme Court, and I guess Democrats can console themselves that they will live to die another day.
Use of the filibuster to avoid votes on judicial nominees has gotten out of hand. I don't like Bush's nominees one iota, but I guess if the Democrats want to avoid having to vote on them, maybe they should put their heads together and try a little harder to win the presidency.
has it? under bush, 208 judges were approved and 10 were blocked. frist resubmitted 7 out those 10. is it really the dems who are unreasonable here?
i'd say what is out of hand is the political divide; the techniques are a manifestation of that.
How do you figure? This fight was really about the upcoming SCOTUS vacancy. The Democrats reserve the right to filibuster 'under extraordinary circumstances' which is vague enough to mean just about anything.
Frist looks like a weak leader who cannot keep his own caucus together on what was billed as such a major issue. Frist's presidential aspirations are gone (for which I am totally grateful) because the SpongeDob Stickypants crowd is going to be completely pissed off at him. He couldn't deliver what he promised, which was a free shot at the Supreme Court.
The GOP has taken a major beating on this issue, particularly in the realm of public opinion. Congressional approval numbers are roughly similar to their numbers in 1994 (except reversed) when the GOP swept into power there.
It has detracted from what Bush wanted to be talking about, namely Social Security 'reform'. It's taken all the oxygen out of the political world for the last month or so.
Sure the Democrats have to let some very odious judges move to the floor for the up-or-down vote Republicans have been clamoring for, but with the most odious going to the floor for a vote, some hope remains that the Democrats will be able to muster up 6 votes to reject one or two of them. An outside shot, for sure, but still a possibility. Moderate GOP members will have their vote for Owens and Brown hauled out and trotted around during campaign time, and that may affect enough of them to muster some opposition. At the very least the Democrats can all go on record as voting against these two.
In addition, there will be little the GOP can do next time the Dems are in power in the Senate and the WH to prevent floor votes on any Democratic nominees since most of them are now on record as saying an up-or-down vote is basically the duty of the Senate to provide to the president no matter what the issue involved.
So yes, it's a compromise (which is how government is SUPPOSED to work) but it is largely a loser for the GOP the way I see it.
good analysis. i can see how, in the larger SCOTUS picture, the dems still have tools at their disposal.
in the smaller picture, frist will able to bring some nominations to the floor. in "exchange," the dems get status quo.
i'm wondering if the dems should have gone ahead and let the GOP remove the filibuster and let public opinion swing against the GOP. now, the GOP can claim to be the party of moderation and compromise, while still labeling the dems as obstructionist.
No no no no no no no no no! That would have given Bush a free pass on at least one Supreme, most likely the Chief Justice slot. Imagine the fallout if you achieve a moral victory and stand firm on principle, but you get Scalia elevated to Chief Justice and someone like Brown or Owen to take his place. That's 20 years of trouble. Even if the voters agreed with you and tossed the GOP out of power in '06, you'd still have to face a generation of a court that would be very unfriendly to the working class. And Bush would still be nominating judges until '08. Even a Democratic-led Congress would be picking from the choices Bush provides.
I'm suspicious anytime both sides aren't whining at least a little about a decision. When both are unhappy, I'm feel a lot better about things.
I didn't say the Democrats were unreasonable. The Democrats didn't even start the practice. Frist himself has filibustered a vote on a judicial nominee -- not a Bush nominee, needless to say. What I mean to say is that the whole practice of nominating judges has gotten recklessly divisive. And although the Democrats are right to call Frist a Constitution-wrecker for threatening the filibuster (despite that filibustering isn't actually in the Constitution -- it has become one of those institutionalized elements of the way the country works, much like judicial review and the two-party system), the fact is that the whole process of nominating and approving judges has gotten way out of hand because both parties are so out-of-control rigid on one single ***** issue.
right. i'm trying to out-longterm-think you
let the GOP have it all. all 3 branches, overturn roe v. wade, cut taxes, deregulate everything, let the environment rot, gut social programs, arrest gays, et. al.
and if we still have elections intact, per IJR's beliefs, the GOP will eventually be sent packing.
I see you are a fan of pyrrhic victories.
Well I'm relieved, for the moment. In case you hadn't noticed, Frist really wanted this showdown. It seems to have mattered to him more than the outcome, or getting any judges confirmed. He loses a lot of street cred with the religious right over this compromise, in which of course he had no part. Speaking of which, the compromise hangs on the votes of just 14 senators, seven of each party, suggesting it could fall apart at any moment.
while i'll never say, "i told you so," i will stand with my arms crossed and eyebrows raised.
From the right... link.
Russ Feingold thinks that;
The fact that Dobson is hopping mad suggests that he and Frist have been robbed.
An Analysis of The Deal (Democrats Win Big!) From Kos
From this Kos Diary.
If removing Priscilla and Janice from the table is not a victory, I don't know what is.
And I mean a victory for the vast majority of Americans, whether you know it or not, or whether or not you accept that it is good for you.
The far right conservatives have gone too far and fractured the party. Let's see if an implosion occurs. Retribution and backstabbing are sure to ensue as Frist sees his Presidential hopes fade.
I have very mixed feelings about this.
Since so much of the language remains purposely vague -- "extraordinary circumstances", the "no nuclear option" clause being contingent on the Dems adhering to the "spirit" of the agreement -- I think the agreement is largely meaningless, at least in terms of the "big issue" that was being fought over: whether the Senate should be allowed to change the rules. All it takes is a small group on either side crying "Foul!", and the whole thing could end up revisiting us in the future.
In terms of the personal issues -- the nominees -- it's a really mixed bag. Owen, Pryor and Brown move on to a vote, and will probably win it. Given the fact that Owen in particular was made the poster child for everything that's wrong with reactionary judges, her potential elevation to the Supreme Court some day remains troubling. And, for the judges whose nominations are scuttled by this agreement...how do we know that Bush won't seek to fill those seats by submitting new nominees who are even more odious than his original ones?
Yes, Frist has lost some cred with the Birchers and Bible-bangers, but who knows how much that will really harm the Republicans?
And finally, I'm surprised by this agreement, because as IJ noted, Frist really, really wanted a high-noon showdown. The irony being, it's a showdown that the Democrats would have won.