May 23, 2005
Filibuster Settled - Democrats Blinked First
It appears that a truce has been reached between the Republicans and the Democrats over the abuse of the filibuster in blocking judicial approval--and, it looks as if the Democrats blinked first. Well, at least that's my take. My initial conclusion is that the Senate will return to the manner of approving judges as in the past and that the Democrats will stop with their games--giving the President the votes on his judges, who should be approved.
Here's part of the AP report:
Under the terms, Democrats agreed to allow final confirmation votes for Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor, named to appeals court seats. There is "no commitment to vote for or against" the filibuster against two other conservatives named to the appeals court, Henry Saad and William Myers.The agreement said future nominees to the appeals court and Supreme Court should "only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances," with each Democrat senator holding the discretion to decide when those conditions had been met.
"In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement," Republicans said they would oppose any attempt to make changes in the application of filibuster rules.
Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., swiftly noted he had not been a party to the deal, which fell short of his stated goal of winning yes-or-no votes on each of Bush's nominees. "It has some good news and it has some disappointing news and it will require careful monitoring," he said,
Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada seemed more receptive - although he hastened to say he remains opposed to some of the nominees who will now likely take seats on federal appeals courts.
"We have sent President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the radical right of the Republican party an undeniable message ... the abuse of power will not be tolerated."
So, my quick take is that the Democrats knew that the Republicans were serious about forcing the Democrats to honor the historical precedence for the use of the filibuster unless the Democrats did it voluntarily. Also, the talk about making the President withdraw some names for the purpose of approving others did not materialize.
However, I don't see this as a permanent solution, as rarely occurs in these negotiations, but it is more of a temporary truce to restore the debate to what existed before--thus, allowing President Bush's judicial nominations to receive the up-or-down vote that they deserve and which the Senate is supposed to provide according to the Constitution.
Because this agreement was just completed, it will develop further as each side claims victory and more information is made available in the next few hours. Already, we are seeing claims from both sides, but the claims of victory from the Democrats seem to have less substance. Of course, the Republicans still need to get the names to the floor for a vote, and Bill Frist is right that it will take careful monitoring.
What I presented was my quick analysis on this. How do you see the agreement? Who won or who lost? Do you think that it will last long or was this just a temporay delaying tactic? Will President Bush get the votes and have his judges approved?
Stay tuned for the next exciting episode!
Posted by GM Roper at May 23, 2005 08:16 PM | TrackBackGM, the Crooksandliars website has the conservative blogger rundown...they're not too happy over there in blogistan...
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/05/23.html#a3089
Posted by steve at May 23, 2005 09:07 PM
steve, I have to believe that you have a huge staff researching articles and web sites the instant an issue comes up.
I went to "Crooks and Liars" and read the take. It appears that the people supporting the Democrats are looking at this as a victory because one Republican or conservative came out on top of another one--not that the Democrats came out of top. That's pretty weak.
While some seem to have glee that Frist "lost" to McCain, it may be that Frist may have been a winner by NOT having to change the rules and suffer whatever consequences that carried with the public.
The "Booman Tribune", which is apparently liberal, http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/5/23/183058/299 seemed to have a rational analysis on this issue.
What's your take?
Posted by Woody at May 23, 2005 09:54 PM
Oh gosh yes, I would agree with you it's weak, but they're Democrats for god sake, what would you expect? Weak knees is their number one physical characteristic!
Myself, I'd guess if they stuck to their guns they mighta won more ,hard call. I think they took whatever would contribute to the further weakening of the base that is presumed to have won the last election for Bush, namely the fundies. Everything's election strategy when it comes to the Dems, though that's hardly unique to them.
I have been very impressed by how much more on message the Repubs have been, even in their division--although it wasn't terribly persuasive with the American populace. I've never understood, for example, why the Dems let Frist get away with the 'up or down, yes or no' when the first person on the list, Owens, had 3 votes already! Hardly ever heard this kind of stuff from Dems and, as a result, hardly in the media either. It was all 'up or down' versus 'constitution'. I guess they didn't think countering with '4 up and downs for one judge?' or some such comeback would be effective...The Dems are really so defensive at times when it seems that going on the offensive would not hurt anything. Credit the Repubs for at least trying, which enables them to claim the agenda? The more liberal of the Dems seem to recognise this and not be too pleased, though where were they when it mattered?
ALl that speculation, I speculate that this is, no matter what, something that is now the second blow to the christian fundamentalist wing of the GOP, Terry being the first overplayed card. Then again, that's the brilliance of the Republican Party it seems, knowing how to take what were plainly masterful defeats and turning them into electoral victories [Elian was the precedent? something like 90% of the country was against the Cuban exile leadership's position on that...FOX/the fisherman-vaccum cleaner guy/marislsyesisisylis/RNC lost and then used that loss as part of their election strategy!].
And thinking of strategy, better to have the nation irritated with fundies than angry about stagfailure in Iraq or social security privatization.
Another thought on that thread--it seemed that that was what was a big justification for the compromise from the centrist repubs, the fear that nothing would get done in a bitter senate environment [i.e no deal could get cut on social security in the future]. From my vantage, being opposed to privatization of SS, I lost, the fundies lost, Bush won. In other words, I thought it might have been better if the 'nuclear option' got carried out, for it would have made it darn near impossible to do anything on SS! Now the Dems will probably fall into the Bush trap and work out some compromise on that too since everyone is into compromise and moderate 'solutions'.
Posted by steve at May 23, 2005 11:03 PM
The commentary I've read seems to line up this way:
Most committed (strident, extreme) asherents of each party are disappointed with the deal and feel that their side blinked. Most moderates and pragmatists from each side feel good about the deal.
Check out Decision08 (http://decision08.blogspot.com/) for some details.
Put me in the moderate/pragmatist camp. Politics is about deal making and compromise especially when dealing with issues involving strongly competing interests.
Interestingly it seems that compromise often leaves many uncomfortable with the outcome; feeling that they "lost" somehow. I earn part of my living from negotiating contracts. The best deals are those in which both sides feel they got a fair deal - which is not necessarily everything they originally said they wanted.
This deal feels that way to me.
Posted by too many steves at May 24, 2005 07:24 AM
