The deal is awful. Embarrassingly so. The worst part is unilateral disarmament . Only two silver linings: 1) the long-overdue confirmation of Judge Pryor; and 2) Frist is finished as a presidential candidate.
(via Joe's Dartblog)
More:
Democrat Mickey Kaus says it's a stall at best, a Republican loss at worst (emphasis in original):
Democrats will be still able to filibuster future nominees, including any Supreme Court candidate, under what they decide are "extraordinary circumstances." Republicans get to revive the anti-filibuster "nuclear option" if they believe Democrats are finding "extraordinary circumstances" where there aren't any. ... So what did the 14 moderates actually accomplish with their deal? "They kicked the can down the road." . . .Still More:
True, the future posture of a controversial Bush nomination will be a bit different than the precise can-kicking scenario envisioned below. Instead of fighting the "nuclear" fight all over again from square one, Dems and GOPs will first wage a new rhetorical war over what is "extraordinary" and what is "bad faith." The need to justify this loaded rhetoric presumably makes a filibuster battle at least somewhat less likely. But the mere postponement--until, presumably, a Supreme Court seat opens up--favors the Democrats, for the reasons outlined earlier. Bush will need to nominate someone who will either avoid or win such a somewhat-less-likely filibuster battle when the stakes are high enough for the bulk of the voters to be paying attention. This effectively narrows Bush's choices.
The Congressional Research Service recently analyzed the lawfulness of a Senate cloture by majority vote. Among other things, the report considered whether a majority of Senators could change the Rule XXII to eliminate supermajority cloture. CRS relates at least three instances -- two on the same day! -- where a simple majority was sufficient to change Senate rules:
At the start of the 91st Congress (1969-1971), this approach was attempted, and the presiding officer, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, ruled that a majority of those Senators present and voting could invoke cloture. The question before the Senate when Humphrey made this ruling was a motion to consider a resolution to change the threshold for invoking cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths of those present and voting. In this case, the Senator who sought to change the rules by majority vote, Senator Frank Church, asked the presiding officer to make the determination, and the Vice President then ruled. The Senate voted 51-47 to invoke cloture, and the chair ruled that the motion had succeeded by majority vote. Later the same day, the Vice President’s ruling was appealed and the Senate voted 45-53 to overrule it, thus overturning the decision to permit majority cloture.10 . .The Senate again reversed itself on the Mansfield point two weeks later, but again only by majority vote. If the issue ever resurfaces, it's clear that a majority vote would be sufficient to change Senate rules -- including Rule XXII.
In 1975, at the start of the 94th Congress, proponents of the proposition that a majority of Senators could invoke cloture on a rules change at the opening of a Congress had a short-lived victory. Senator James Pearson submitted a resolution changing the threshold for invoking cloture from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of those present and voting. The Senator offered a lengthy motion, which included as a given that a majority vote of the Senate could invoke cloture on his proposal. Senator Mike Mansfield objected and raised a point of order that Senator Pearson’s motion violated the rules of the Senate. The presiding officer, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, declined to rule, on the same ground cited by Vice-President Humphrey in 1967, instead putting the question before the Senate to decide. By a vote of 51-42, the Senate agreed to a motion to table the Mansfield point of order, thus implicitly agreeing to the majority cloture proposition.
More and More:
Gary at RightPundit digs deeper and is far more "tactfull [and] diplomatic." And Resistance is Futile scolds Senator McCain (not R-Wacko). Don't miss Jay Tea's definitive pronouncement: " I've just looked over the terms of the agreement worked out by the seven Democrats and seven Republicans, and I think someone needs to notify the Capitol Police. The Democrats just royally raped the Republicans."
More3:
Beth says it's a win, and links to the like-minded. UPDATE: Joe Gandelman posted an extensive round-up (via The Glittering Eye).
I don't agree. History will compare this deal to President Ford's gaffe debating Jimmy Carter. Ford validated Yalta's "Iron Curtain," dooming Eastern Europe to 15 more years of Russian rule. Frist and the seven dwarfs implicitly endorsed an unconstitutional Senate rule (as applied to Presidental appointments), extending the current tyranny of the courts.
_____________
10 Vice President Hubert Humphrey, remarks in Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 115, Jan. 16, 1969, pp. 994-995. (original CRS note, page 5.)
7 comments:
Short term victory for the GOP...longterm...nothing really changed.
In the long term, it is better for all. Just remember that God sometimes punishes us by granting us what we wish for.
Carl, I am not so certain that it is a bad thing. Looking at all the logical possibilities (even from a purely conservative viewpoint):
1) A majority of the people may really want the more conservative judges confirmed. If so, they can send a few more Republican senators to Washington in 2006.
2) A majority of the people may have been suspicious that some of the judges were too conservative. If so, this move should reassure them that Republicans are willing to compromise and remove a possible angle of Democratic attack.
3) A majority of the people may have already decided that Republicans are too extreme and there may be a turn toward the Dems in the 2006 elections and in 2008. If so, this move preserves the Republicans' ability to block nominees they consider too liberal.
4) Most of the people may not have known what they believed about the judges and were making up their minds. If so, this move allows three through, and allows the Republicans to fight the battle on the rest one at a time. This permits them to make their case to the public one at a time and puts the onus on the Democrats to explain their opposition to each candidate one at a time.
In general, I would have to say that Sun Tzu would approve of this deal. It expands the political field of action for the Republicans while shrinking it for the Democrats. They will now be able to oppose only on the basis of facts. Given my own fact-checking on a few of these people, I would have to say that the Republicans are likely to win on facts. This deal may well have saved the seats of one or two Republican senators.
My primary objections are:
1) We've forfeited the right to dump the filibuster later;
2) In exchange for only three judges;
3) And the deal doesn't apply to Supreme Court nominees, which the Democrats consider "extraordinary circumstances" by definition.
We sold our soul for a mess of porridge.
I'm seeing what you mean, but I strongly suspect the R's are going to be filibuster-proof after 2006. Because I think the public is fed up with the judges deciding how society should be run (even when they agree with their decisions). I think several more conservative states will go R in the Senate.
Any way, the 14 forfeited the right in the 109th. If they thought it was right I suppose I'm saying they had the right to do it.
M_O_M and Dingo:
My thoughts here.
'We sold our soul for a mess of porridge.'
I second that.
Post a Comment