Deal Struck!

[KBarn]

I will wait to see how the “compromise” turns out, but if it turns out poorly, I think the Constitution Party may have my vote for national elections at least.

 

[David_Paul]

KBarn:

I think the Constitution Party may have my vote for national elections at least.

Know much about the CP? I gathered signatures to get a CP candidate on the ballot of U.S. Senate last year (the GOP pro-life Senators were safe).

My background is Cong/Unitarian.

Almost had to asked him to leave my house on election day with his comments. Not about liberal Prots but about Catholics, Jews, and Neocons Jew lackeys like Bush.

The platform on the surface looks OK. But check under it. the old anti-Catholic/ Blaine amendment sentiment is still there.

 

[gilliam]

KBarn:

I will wait to see how the “compromise” turns out, but if it turns out poorly, I think the Constitution Party may have my vote for national elections at least.

If I were a Democrat those words would be music to my ears!

 

[Digitonomy]

Originally Posted by gilliam
Before the Dems can use the super-majority clause they will first have to convince the decenting Republicans that it is appropriate otherwise the Republicans and impose the rule they were planning on imposing tomorrow.

Originally Posted by mikev
This isn’t the way i understand it. According to several sources I’ve read, it is up to each Democrat senator to decide when to fillibuster…

Originally Posted by gilliam
All depends on if they are Senators of their word, (read the agreement)

The agreement in no way requires a senator to convince another senator that his fillibuster is “appropriate.” Presumably none of the Republicans feel that a fillibuster of Myers and Saad is appropriate. But that appears certain to happen, and their inclusion in a section of the agreement outside of the three cloture candidates is de facto approval of that fillibuster.

Your statement is accurate only to the extent that a senator may choose to withdraw from the agreement if he feels that another senator is truly abusing his discretion in determining what constitute “extraordinary circumstances”. Anything short of that, and the larger onus appears to be on the Republican signatories not to support any rule change.

 

[gilliam]

Digitonomy:

Your statement is accurate only to the extent that a senator may choose to withdraw from the agreement if he feels that another senator is truly abusing his discretion in determining what constitute “extraordinary circumstances”. Anything short of that, and the larger onus appears to be on the Republican signatories not to support any rule change.

Yes, it is a “gentlemen’s agreement”

 

[David_Paul]

From american spectator which has been negative on the hopes for a win:

The parameters of the deal insure that six of eight obstructed Bush nominees to the federal judiciary will receive an up or down confirmation vote in the Senate. The three most opposed Bush nominees to the court, Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor, will not have their nominations blocked any longer; also, three other Bush nominees will eventually receive an up or down confirmation vote as well; the only two nominees who still may be filibustered are Michigan judge Henry Saad and William Myers.

Also as part of the compromise, the Democrat moderates promise to prevent any future filibuster of Bush appeals court and Supreme Court nominees. While Democrats were able to have their “exceptional circumstances” clause inserted in the deal, no one anticipates that such a situation will arise, assuming Democrats keep their promise. And it appears, that a number of promises were being tossed around the negotiation room on Monday afternoon.

Several Republican senators involved in negotiations swore that not only will the six Bush nominees be given an up or down vote, but that Democrats in the room were aware that Republicans involved in the negotiations had agreed to vote cloture on Myers as well, and that Democratic negotiators had agreed that such a move could take place, thus also allowing Myers an up or down vote in the Senate. “Assuming that our guys hold themselves to that promise,” says another Republican staffer working on the Judiciary committee, “then we’re looking at a clean sweep for confirmations.”

 

[gilliam]

cool. It is the supreme court nominations I worry about.

A Modest Victory for Bush, but More Tests Lie Ahead

By RICHARD W. STEVENSON, NY Times

WASHINGTON, May 23 - President Bush won enough from the bipartisan compromise on judicial nominees on Monday night to claim a limited victory, but he now faces a series of additional tests of his political authority, with the stakes extending to the fate of his second-term agenda.

On the plus side for Mr. Bush, the bipartisan agreement among 14 centrist senators expressly called for up-or-down votes on three of his nominees to federal appeals court seats, all but ensuring their confirmations, though it left in limbo the fate of two more. By explicitly exempting from the agreement two additional judges opposed by Democrats, it did not meet Mr. Bush’s oft-stated demand that all his nominees get a vote, and it did not foreclose the possibility that Democrats could block an eventual nominee to the Supreme Court, a matter of intense concern to the White House. The split-the-baby outcome, moreover, did little to resolve a rolling series of challenges to Mr. Bush that in coming days and weeks could do much to set the tone for his second four years in office.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com …

 

[Digitonomy]

Interesting article. I think Bush has in fact bitten off more than he can chew over the next few weeks, but I also think he’ll get 2/3 of a full glass in the end.

 

[David_Paul]

gilliam:

cool. It is the supreme court nominations I worry about.

Critical of course. But this bleeds the Culture of Death.

They appeal and get knocked down by Bush appointees at the appellate level. Costs them lots of bucks to go up to SCOTUS. Most likely SCOTUS won’t hear most of their cases.

In the past, those favoring life had to pay to appeal and lower (liberal) Federal court rulings held.

This is a huge change. The left knows it. That is why Democratic Underground is howling tonight.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Here is a question I have.

The Democrats say that this deal is a victory for the American People and Democracy.

This deal keeps the “tradition” (in quotes for a reason that will become apparent below) of filibustering judicial nominees.

Now the “nuclear option”, which was better describe by Rush Limbaugh as the constitutional option, was to declare such a filibuster as unconstitutional.

So can someone please tell me how it is a victory for America to keep a “tradition” that is unconstitutional?

Just becuase it is a “tradition” does not mean it is correct. Honor killings of women are “tradition” in many cultures of the world. Slavery was a “tradition” in early America. Neither of those are correct.

 

[gilliam]

This really is not an issue of constitutionality. Senate rules on debate are up to the Senate to decide. There is nothing in the constitution that restricts that. If you really want to permanently change that, you need to mak a change to the constitution. But, personally, I don’t think we want to go there.

There is nothing in the advise and consent clause of the constitution that forbids an unrestricted debate on a candidate.

Having said that. Just because it is not unconstitutional, doesn’t make it correct.

 

[mikev]

ByzCath:

Here is a question I have.

The Democrats say that this deal is a victory for the American People and Democracy.

This deal keeps the “tradition” (in quotes for a reason that will become apparent below) of filibustering judicial nominees.

Now the “nuclear option”, which was better describe by Rush Limbaugh as the constitutional option, was to declare such a filibuster as unconstitutional.

So can someone please tell me how it is a victory for America to keep a “tradition” that is unconstitutional?

Just becuase it is a “tradition” does not mean it is correct. Honor killings of women are “tradition” in many cultures of the world. Slavery was a “tradition” in early America. Neither of those are correct.

Can’t explain how this is a victory; because I agree with you.

This biggest problems we face lately have come from the judiciary; abortion, homosexual “marriage”, the list goes on and on.

Our best hope of changing this is through the appointment of judges. We must have been asleep at the wheel to let things get so out of hand in the first place. Let’s not get lulled into complacency now that we have a chance to change things for the better.

 

[gilliam]

People were all hot and bothered on this list about the death of an innocent woman at the hands of the liberal Left. Yet when they could actually do something by lobbying their Senators this weekend, there was actually support here for the Democrats.

 

[Hildebrand]

gilliam:

Pretty nice deal for the Republicans. It basically says that the normal mode of opperations will be an up and down vote and only in very rare circumstances will they insist on a super-majority vote.

Before the Dems can use the super-majority clause they will first have to convince the decenting Republicans that it is appropriate otherwise the Republicans and impose the rule they were planning on imposing tomorrow. And require a regular up or down vote (which is what the constitution says anyway).

Not a nice deal at all for pro-lifers. Two of the seven Republicans senators who could have ended the filibuster of judicial nominees were pro-life this time. Next time for the Supreme Court, “the Compromise Committee” would need only Lisa Murkowski or Arlen Specter to block a conservative pro-life Supreme Court nomination.

You have seven pro-choice Republicans in the Senate (not including Ted Stevens and Liz Dole, who are reported to be moderately pro-life/pro-choice). Therefore, there are 48 “pro-life” Republicans and one real pro-life Democrat (Ben Nelson - who’s apart of the compromise). That’s 49 pro-life votes for a conservative Supreme Court nomination. To get it to a 50-50 tie: we’d *only *need the vote of John Warner, or Lisa Murkowski, or Alren Specter, or McCain or one of the other “moderates” (Arlen Specter, etc). This WAS HIGHLY probable and therefore we WOULD HAVE GOTTEN (past tense) whoever Bush nominated to the Supreme Court.

The above statement is no longer true because of last night’s events.

These two traitorous so-called pro-life Senators: Mike DeWine & Lindsey Graham (close friend of McCain) have thought they came up with a decent compromise for us. However, they set the precedent for sacrificing/rejecting some of Bush’s nominees on the Republican side and looking like heroes while doing it. For the Supreme Court, these traitorous pro-life Senators will probably fight for, not against, the pro-life Supreme Court nominee. However, Lisa Murkowski could step in and join “the compromise committee”, thus having 6 pro-choice Republicans who will sell out on Bush’s pro-life nominees to the Supreme Court. Then she can look like a hero just as DeWine & Lindsey Graham.

So long as the “the compromise committee” stays the same with both Mike DeWine & Lindsey Graham in it, there is not much to fear, IMHO. But what will stop Senator Lisa Murkowski from joining the group and deciding the fate of Bush’s nominees? Nothing will stop her. The choice is hers.

We had Arlen Specter on the pro-life side during this debate. Over the weekend, Frist announced he had the 50 votes needed because we had the vote of Specter to end the filibuster! Who would have thought TWO pro-life senators would have sold out the pro-life cause! If Arlen Specter jumps on the compromise bandwagon and defeats Bush’s nominees, blame Mike DeWine & Lindsey Graham who are pro-life and know better. They could have ended the darm thing right now.

This is a very sad day for the pro-life cause. Bush’s pro-life nominees to the Supreme Court will be defeated. Just watch… McCain is already going around claiming victory and stating Bush must appoint nominees that are more moderate (code word for pro-choice).

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

We’ll see how this turns out. I hope the Republican leadership is viewing these boards.

The Democrats stand for just about everything I am against. The Republicans “in theory” stand for many things I believe in. But if they can’t get control Congress when they are in control of Congress, they stand for nothing in my opinion and therefore I would be done voting for them.

I haven’t come to that conclusion just yet, but this critically important issue I am watching close to see how they handle their “majority”. So far, I am not impressed. The proof will be in the results of this action.

 

[Hildebrand]

TPJCatholic:

Here is what James Dobson had to say (I agree with him and I could not possibly be more done with the republicans):

“This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats. Only three of President Bush’s nominees will be given the courtesy of an up-or-down vote, and it’s business as usual for all the rest. The rules that blocked conservative nominees remain in effect, and nothing of significance has changed. Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist would never have served on the U. S. Supreme Court if this agreement had been in place during their confirmations. The unconstitutional filibuster survives in the arsenal of Senate liberals.”
releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=47847

So true. The Republicans chose the right fight at the right time and lost.

The right fight: fight for women and minorities

The right time: fight over the lower court nominees. (The Democrats and the media will go absolutely bonkers if the constitutional option is used during a Supreme Court battle)

Don’t kid yourselves, we lost. The 9th Circuit or DC Circuit cannot overturn Roe v. Wade. This was not about the Circuit Court of Appeals, this was about the Supreme Court! :banghead:

 

[Brad]

gilliam:

Pretty nice deal for the Republicans. It basically says that the normal mode of opperations will be an up and down vote and only in very rare circumstances will they insist on a super-majority vote.

Before the Dems can use the super-majority clause they will first have to convince the decenting Republicans that it is appropriate otherwise the Republicans and impose the rule they were planning on imposing tomorrow. And require a regular up or down vote (which is what the constitution says anyway).

I’m not so sure I see it this way:

1. A very rare circumstance, in the eyes of the Democrats, will be a Supreme Court nomination.
2. I don’t think it will take too much convincing of these 7 Republicans. I don’t think they will automatically decide to impose the rule, especiall when it comes to a Supreme Court nomination. The Democrats will scream that the Senate is changing the rules that have stood for 240 years solely to get someone on the Supreme Court. It will be an even harder sell to the public.

I’m not happy with the deal unless we see many of Bush’s nominees make it through, including the SC. Every time one is filibustered or threatened with filibuster, we have tyranny of the minority in operation.

The Democrats haven’t seemed to realize they lost the elections. The 7 Republicans don’t quite seem to get it either.

 

[Hildebrand]

Stylteralmaldo:

We’ll see how this turns out. I hope the Republican leadership is viewing these boards.

The Democrats stand for just about everything I am against. The Republicans “in theory” stand for many things I believe in. But if they can’t get control Congress when they are in control of Congress, they stand for nothing in my opinion and therefore I would be done voting for them.

I haven’t come to that conclusion just yet, but this critically important issue I am watching close to see how they handle their “majority”. So far, I am not impressed. The proof will be in the results of this action.

We had the Supreme Court. As long as Bush nominated a pro-lifer, he/she would have gotten confirmed. A second chance may not come around.

 

[Brad]

TPJCatholic:

gilliam,

I have predicted this for monhts, the repubs are weak cowards.

Some of them are. They are afraid of real change. They are not willing to put themselves on the line for the kind of change that might occur - like overturning Roe V. Wade or not allowing same-sex marriage. To some of these Republicans, these are issues for the hard-core religous and don’t mean too much to them.

They don’t get it.

 

[Brad]

gilliam:

All depends on if they are Senators of their word, (read the agreement).

The agreement says this:

A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

It does not say all the signatories will vote to see if there are extraordinary circumstances. It says each signatory (individually) will use their discretion. The 7 Democrats can act independently of the 7 Republicans.