Deal Struck!

[Hildebrand]

Benedictus:

A few points:

1. The term “Constitutional option” is silly. Article II sect. 2 requires the consent of the Senate for judicial nominations. It doesn’t say the Senate must vote up or down on every nomination. Republicans have used lots of procedural tactics in the past to block a vote on nominations. The Senate gets to set its own rules; there is no ambiguity in the Constitution about that. If judicial filibusters are un-Constitutional, then so are many, many, many other Rules of both the House and Senate.
2. Almost everyone here would be defending the filibuster to the death if John Kerry were President and Republicans were filibustering a baby-killer. Admit it: this isn’t a debate about Constitutional principles.
3. We’re going to get three pro-lifers confirmed. That’s pretty good. You can’t reasonably expect all of Bush’s nominees to get confirmed. You just can’t win them all.
4. I’m a bit disappointed that Pryor is going to be confirmed after his handling of the Roy Moore fiasco.
5. Rush Limbaugh is a pompous blowhard and needs to be deflated.
6. Some day there will be a baby-killer in the White House. Some day the Democrats will control the Senate. On that day, the filibuster may come in handy.

1. No it does not say everyone must get an up or down vote. There are three phases of advice and consent that the Senate has established. The first level is for district court nominees. The Senators, where the District court nominees will reside, have the responsibility to advice and consent. If the two state senators consent, then the Judiciary committee has the responsibility to give advice and consent. If the nominee is approved out of the committee, after a period of debate (advice), an up or down vote is taken (consent). This was the policy of the Senate for over 200 years. Never was a nominee with majority support EVER filibustered by the US Senate. Republicans use long-standing traditional ways to fight nominees, without the ability to block nominees the traditional way, Democrats used the filibuster for the first time ever to defeat a nominee with majority support (51 votes).
2. Republicans believe it is a right of the president to nominate justices who agree with the president. Do you honestly believe Kerry would nominate a pro-life supreme court justice? You would have to be on something to believe that. Clinton nominated only pro-abortion Supreme Court nominees. For years when Democrats were nominating SC justices, Republican Senators confirmed nominees over their judicial experience and professionalism, not because they were pro-life or pro-abortion. Pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed by a vote of 96-3. Pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer was confirmed by a vote of 87-9. The Republicans did not seek to seek revenge for the nomination of Bork, they thought if they have a majority of senators and a Republican president, they would be able to get their nominees in.
3. To quote Chris Farley: Well just La-Dee Fricken Dah! We get three nominees to various Circuit Court of Appeals! Yeah! This is great, we don’t get Supreme Court nominees, but we get district and circuit justices! Do you think I care about winning them all? Did you ever question why the Democrats did not pick a fight over many district court nominees?
4. Excuse me? Pryor, Are talking about the same pro-life Catholic Pryor? I hope you are talking about another Pryor.
5. Rush Limbaugh is a pompous blowhard and needs to be deflated? And there is a blue jay outside my window, and your point is?
6. There have been several pro-abortion presidents and they will always get their way. The liberal media would kill the Republicans if they seek to block all pro-abortion nominations to the Supreme Court. Are you really serious when you think that Democrats will nominate pro-life nominees to the Supreme Court?

 

[David_Paul]

Benedictus:

I do think the filibuster will come in handy either when we have a Democrat President or when the Democrats control the Senate.

You think Democrats won’t change the filibuster rules if they have a Senate majority?

They did it in the 1970s.

And the party is far more radical today than it was then.

 

[Benedictus]

Hildebrand:

Never was a nominee with majority support EVER filibustered by the US Senate.

Except for the one that Mr. Frist unsuccesfully filibustered. Even if what you say were true, it’s irrelevent. You are essentially saying that if X has never been done, then X should never be done.

Republicans believe it is a right of the president to nominate justices who agree with the president.

Nobody disputes that.

Do you honestly believe Kerry would nominate a pro-life supreme court justice?

Did I indicate that he would?

This is great, we don’t get Supreme Court nominees, but we get district and circuit justices!

Well, Mr. Bush hasn’t nominated anyone to the Supreme Court, so… you’re point is…? Nobody knows what would happen if Bush nominated a pro-life judge to the Supreme Court. I don’t expect the Democrats to support one, but nobody knows if they’d filibuster one either.

1. Excuse me? Pryor, Are talking about the same pro-life Catholic Pryor? I hope you are talking about another Pryor.

Yes, that Pryor who was instrumental in removing Roy Moore and the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Supreme Court building.

1. There have been several pro-abortion presidents and they will always get their way. The liberal media would kill the Republicans if they seek to block all pro-abortion nominations to the Supreme Court. Are you really serious when you think that Democrats will nominate pro-life nominees to the Supreme Court?

Again, I think you’re not understanding what I wrote. I’m supporting the filibuster because there will one day be a baby-killer President nominating baby-killer judges.

 

[Benedictus]

David_Paul:

You think Democrats won’t change the filibuster rules if they have a Senate majority?

I actually doubt it, but who knows. If the Democrats would do it, that makes it okay?

 

[David_Paul]

Of course it is OK. The Senate sets its own rules on debate.

Democrats will do anything to protect their abortion industry. They will say or do anything to get power back. One year they change the filibuster rule (they dropped cloture from 67 to 60 votes). A while later, they all say filibusters should never be used on judges. Now they pretend the right to filibuster is sacrosanct.

 

[KBarn]

Benedictus:

1. Rush Limbaugh is a pompous blowhard and needs to be deflated.

What does that have to do with anything? Viva la center because Rush Limbaugh isn’t in it? I don’t wish to offend, but since when is Rush Limbaugh an elected official? Since when does he decide public policy? Sure he has media power, but a loss for the pro-life side shouldn’t be applauded just because it might bruise Rush’s ego.

 

[Hildebrand]

Benedictus:

Except for the one that Mr. Frist unsuccesfully filibustered. Even if what you say were true, it’s irrelevent. You are essentially saying that if X has never been done, then X should never be done.

Was Judge Paez defeated by the filibuster or does he now sit on a federal bench? I’ll say it again, nobody with majority support was ever filibustered. Senators may have tried to filibuster a nominee with majority, but it was not successful in blocking the person from being elevated to the federal courts.

So it is true that nobody was every blocked by a filibuster (block from being elevated to the federal bench) who had majority support (51 votes) until this congress.

 

[Benedictus]

KBarn:

What does that have to do with anything? Viva la center because Rush Limbaugh isn’t in it? I don’t wish to offend, but since when is Rush Limbaugh an elected official? Since when does he decide public policy? Sure he has media power, but a loss for the pro-life side shouldn’t be applauded just because it might bruise Rush’s ego.

Somewhere else in this thread someone was praising Mr. Limbaugh. What Mr. Limbaugh said about this affair was typical of him. If Democrats do X, they’re playing dirty politics. If Republicans do X, it’s a-okay.

This wasn’t a loss for the pro-life side. It wasn’t necessarily a victory either.

 

[aimee]

RUSH ROCKS!!!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Benedictus:

Somewhere else in this thread someone was praising Mr. Limbaugh. What Mr. Limbaugh said about this affair was typical of him. If Democrats do X, they’re playing dirty politics. If Republicans do X, it’s a-okay.

This wasn’t a loss for the pro-life side. It wasn’t necessarily a victory either.

First, if it wasn’t a victory then it was a loss. There is no other thing,

Now to comment on the rest, I do not want to accuse you of having an agenda here Benedictus but it does appear so.

You claim that someone on this threat praised Rush, you are wrong.

Rush was only mentioned four times by four different users, you were one of them. Here they are if you don’t know how use the find feature of your browser.

I started it with this comment in reply #29.

ByzCath:

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

That is not praising him, actually I do not really care for him, but he had a point, this is a option was not a “nuclear” one but a constitutional one.

Then you come back with this apparent agenda in reply #63.

Benedictus:

1. Rush Limbaugh is a pompous blowhard and needs to be deflated.

Hildebrand then answers back asking what this has to do with the price of tea in China in reply #80.

Hildebrand:

1. Rush Limbaugh is a pompous blowhard and needs to be deflated? And there is a blue jay outside my window, and your point is?

The finally, KBarn asks you the same thing once again in reply #85.

KBarn:

What does that have to do with anything? Viva la center because Rush Limbaugh isn’t in it? I don’t wish to offend, but since when is Rush Limbaugh an elected official? Since when does he decide public policy? Sure he has media power, but a loss for the pro-life side shouldn’t be applauded just because it might bruise Rush’s ego.

So I think you should at the very least retract your statement that someone here was praising Rush as it didn’t happen.

 

[Hildebrand]

Benedictus:

Again, I think you’re not understanding what I wrote. I’m supporting the filibuster because

there will one day be a baby-killer President nominating baby-killer judges.

You still do not get it. What good would filibustering a Democratic SC nominee if they are not willing to appoint a pro-life justice? If all the Democrats do were nominate pro-abortion nominees to the SC, then Republicans would have to filibuster EVERY one he/she appoints.

There are several scenarios that show your proposal as folly:

1. Given the premise that Republican presidents appoint pro-life SC justices and the Democrat presidents appoint pro-abortion SC justices. Then the Republicans filibuster the nominees from a Democrat and Democrats filibuster Republican nominees. Only the Democrats have been able to overcome a filibuster by party-line voting, therefore it is more likely for pro-abortion SC justices would be confirmed. Given also, there are far more pro-choice Republican senators willing to side with the Democrats in voting for pro-abortion SC justices than there are pro-life Democrats willing to side with the Republicans in voting for a pro-life SC justice. Therefore it is more likely for pro-abortion SC justices would be confirmed with the current abuse of rules.
2. The Democrats have shown a willingness to change the rules of the filibuster and abolish the use of the filibuster when it comes to federal judge nominees. So when the Democrats are in the majority, they may do exactly what the Republicans have been trying to do.
3. Given the more correct premise that Republican presidents appoint some pro-abortion and some pro-life SC justices and the Democrat presidents appoint only pro-abortion SC justices. Then Republican SC nominees, who are pro-life, would be filibustered and the “moderate” pro-choice nominations (Souter, Kennedy, Stevens and O’Connor) would be approved and not filibustered.

Almost every common sense analysis of this situation shows the need to prevent the filibustering of pro-life SC nominees. Now the Democrats may allow a potential pro-life nominee to replace pro-life Rehnquist. But that is only to keep the status-quo of 3 pro-life justices on the Supreme Court. They would never permit a 5th pro-lifer on the SC. Not over their dead bodies, nor over the dead bodies of millions of children.

 

[jlw]

Ok, here’s my take on this:

1. Frist is done. Forget ’ 08, senator. Go be a doctor.
2. McCain is done. Forget ’ 08 senator. Go be Hillary’s lapboy.

1. Hagel: done. Go be McCain’s lapboy.
2. What is with Ohio Republicans???
3. Graham: MIT “McCain-in-training” is sooooo disappointing.
4. The Senate is PATHETIC. Politic, Pontificate, Punt. PATHETIC.
5. The senator who coined the rule change as the “nuclear” option is an idiot. Nice gift to the MSM in framing this issue.
6. Not another dime of my money to to the gop. Only candidates.
7. What in the he** are elections for?? 55-45 majority, and they can’t get something done!!??
8. 200 years of history didn’t mean squat.

Now the

1. Three judges the Left was frothing at the mouth about, Brown , Owen, and Pryor…three “extremists” are getting a vote. And all will be confirmed, by a vote of anywhere from 52-60 votes. Hardly “out of the mainstream” eh?? So all their “extremist” rhetoric is bologna. How can they pull this kind of smear campaigning again on judges that are…similar to Brown, Pryor, and Owen???
2. The “extraordinary circumstances”??? Bush will call their bluff with the…SCOTUS. The dems start filibustering a supreme court nominee, it will be bad news for them. They are in a lose-lose. Daschle understands this first-hand.
3. I haven’t given up on Meyers and Saad. They will have to wait, but it isn’t over. The president did not have to drop them, as earlier deals had stated. I still expect Frist (if he has any cujones) to call them up for a vote regardless.

All in all, I am still p.o’ed, but the realist in me sees the silver lining.

 

[katherine2]

a good compromise. now let’s get back to work.

 

[Hildebrand]

katherine2:

a good compromise. now let’s get back to work.

It is a good compromise as long as “the compromise committee” cannot accept any new Republicans. DeWine and Graham appear for the moment to be willing to jump onto the Byrd/Constitutional/Nuke option if the Democrats filibuster a pro-life SCOTUS nominee. Sadly, that is not the end of it. It would then take only one more maverick Republican to force Bush to “consult with the Republicans and Democrats in the selection of the nominees” (the words of 5 pro-choice Republicans on the compromise committee). This is where Arlen Specter or Lisa Murkowski could enter the scene and ruin the hopes of overturning Roe v. Wade.

All the while, we have to worry about Bush pulling a Reagan by nominating another Sandra Day - a pro-abortion Republican. Reagan apparently knew she was pro-abortion and he still appointed her.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

katherine2:

a good compromise. now let’s get back to work.

I believe that the term “good compromise” is an oxymoron.

I do not, and will never, believe that one can compromise with evil.

Here are some quotes I found that share my feelings on compromising our principles.

Peace won by the compromise of principles is a short-lived achievement. – Author Unknown

Anybody who accepts mediocrity - in school, on the job, in life - is a person who compromises, and when the leader compromises, the whole organization compromises. – Charles Knight

Many things are worse than defeat,and compromise with evil is one of them. – Author Unknown

The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles. – Ayn Rand

The ‘morality of compromise’ sounds contradictory. Compromise is usually a sign of weakness, or an admission of defeat. Strong men don’t compromise, it is said, and principles should never be compromised. – Andrew Carnegie

Compromise: An agreement between two men to do what both agree is wrong. – Lord Edward Cecil

One of the things I realized early in my career is that you do what you believe, in knowing that if you don’t, you will never like yourself. When you compromise out of fear or ambition, it eats inside you. – Samuel Dash

If you limit your choices only to what seems possible or reasonable, you disconnect yourself from what you truly want, and all that is left is compromise. – Robert Fritz

You know what the Englishman’s idea of compromise is? He says, Some people say there is a God. Some people say there is no God. The truth probably lies somewhere between these two statements. – William Butler Yeats

I saved the very best one to be the last one.

Compromise used to mean that half a loaf was better than no bread. Among modern statesmen it really seems to mean that half a loaf ;is better than a whole loaf. – Gilbert K. Chesterton

 

[katherine2]

ByzCath:

I believe that the term “good compromise” is an oxymoron.

I can accept that. It was a good resolution to the dispute.

 

[Hildebrand]

Hildebrand:

Therefore, there are 48 “pro-life” Republicans and one real pro-life Democrat - Ben Nelson

I take it back, Ben Nelson is another pro-life in name only, he vote with the pro-abortion senators, against Justice Owen.

For two years, Nelson was against the filibustering of Owen, so I assumed he would vote for her. I guess not. I lost complete respect for Ben Nelson. Bring on the senate election of 2006. I hope the Nebraskans step up and vote him out of office.

 

[Richardols]

ByzCath:

I do not, and will never, believe that one can compromise with evil.

Since when is a fight over a Senate rule evil or virtuous? You have, it seems, decided that politics are on the level of theological doctrine.

Suppose either party wanted a 75% majority to be the norm for Congressional votes. I suppose you’d see Satan’s hand in that, too.

Kneel before God, Byz, not before the Congress.

 

[Hildebrand]

jlw:

1. Hagel: done. Go be McCain’s lapboy.

I am no fan of Hagel, but he was on the right side of the debate on this one.

It’s telling that another “maverick” who’d been seen as a possible vote against the nuclear option not only wasn’t among the seven compromising Republicans but put out a statement Monday night denouncing the deal. “This is not a good compromise and I do not support it,” said Sen. Chuck Hagel, who probably did his own presidential hopes a modest service thereby.

opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006735

Lindsey Graham is McCain’s lapboy.

 

[Brad]

jlw:

1. Not another dime of my money to to the gop. Only candidates.

Me neither. Wating for the phone call. Seems like they know why they haven’t gotten the $$.

jlw:

1. The “extraordinary circumstances”??? Bush will call their bluff with the…SCOTUS. The dems start filibustering a supreme court nominee, it will be bad news for them. They are in a lose-lose. Daschle understands this first-hand.

Don’t be so sure about this. To me, the reason the Democrats “compromised” is because they retained the filibuster for the SC. To them, a lifetime appointment on the highest court = an extraordinary circumstance. And, frankly, McCain, Snowe, and others don’t really care to see Roe V. Wade overtturned so it’s just dandy with them.