No differing opinions from me. As I said in Steve's post below and over at my place "extraordinary circumstances" is now defined as someone worse than Priscilla Owen. So what good is "extraordinary circumstances"? As for Frist, he already looked like an ineffective dope so what good does it do to make him look like an ineffective dope?
Posted by Ron In Portland at May 23, 2005 06:49 PMWell, in Owen's case, it's like dumping a bag of garbage in a sewage treatment facility (the 5th Circuit). I'm not sure how Rogers' and Pryor's appointments affect the makeup of whatever Circuits they're off to.
And is there any indication that all three will get 51 votes?
Posted by norbizness at May 23, 2005 06:57 PMI am reminded of a professor's comment on a history paper about the Chilean coup in 1973 which I wrote many years ago. He said that my analysis was sufficiently even-handed that both sides would want to shoot me.
Sorry to say it, but this is what compromise means. If neither the left nor the right is happy about this, then there is some chance that it is a 'good' compromise.
Remember that the alternative might have been none of the bad nominations got a vote, but it also might have been all of them did.
Posted by Daniel Maskit at May 23, 2005 06:58 PMThe article I saw said Owens was in, but I haven't seen anything w/r/t Brown. Is that the deal? If so, the GOP hardly "capitulated."
Posted by Matt Davis at May 23, 2005 06:59 PMOh, and by the way, I think it sucks that we had to compromise. I just hope that either some moderate Republicans will vote against the extreme candidates and/or that they suffer in the next election.
Posted by Daniel Maskit at May 23, 2005 06:59 PMMatt, the news I heard was that Brown was one of the three promised a vote without threat of a filibuster. So it's worse than Ron said, Brown is now the standard of an acceptable candidate, not Owen. AND the Republicans didn't even have to promise to keep this agreement in the future. So watch what happens when the Supreme Court opening comes up. How far do you trust this administration and these Republicans to hold off doing the same thing when that event comes up?
Posted by Mary at May 23, 2005 07:16 PMI look forward to seeing the Senate unanimously approve Antonin Scalia to be the next Chief Justice of the United States.
Posted by Toby Petzold at May 23, 2005 07:17 PMToo bad, Toby, Bush likes Thomas better.
Posted by Mary at May 23, 2005 07:23 PMI still see it as a net loss for democrats and I'm partly basing this on the outrage of republicans. The more outrage, the more I see they won. Here's the part of the logic.
Look at outrage on the winger's history lately, think traitor, treason, consensual sex, Mary Cheney is a lesbian, think Mary Schiavo, think gay rights, think Dan Rather & Mary Mapes. In other words, they are always outraged over even the littlest, dumbest, most idiotic thing. It's what they do best. So the fact they are once again outraged because their Boy King Bush didn't get every single nominee right at this exact moment doesn't surprise me in the least. They don't do or understand the word, gasp, "compromise". Oh the humanity! That word doesn't exist in their vocabulary. They are probably more outraged that somewhat even considered dealing with democrats than the actual outcome of the deal. Remember in their warped minds Democrats are Godless unworthy heathens so the mere fact they are even allowed to be in the Senate questioning their God Bush is sickening to them.
I say don't be fooled once again by the winger's "faux" outrage as a sign of victory for democrats. These people are famous for outrage. It's what they do best, their motto is my way or the highway mentality. Bush is their hero, their God. In their minds he can do no wrong. Anything challenging his wishes is worthy of "outrage". This deal was only a very slight and very minor detour for Bush and them and hence the "outrage". Don't be fooled.
Posted by emal at May 23, 2005 07:30 PMWe "preserved" the filibuster by agreeing never to use it again. We pave the way for the three MOST preposterous, odious, unqualified nominees. Plus Rove/Dobson/Bush have no shortage of equally horrendous right wing lawyers for future nominations. We lost the moral high ground of having the Republicans actually detonate two hundred years of Senate tradition, and violate existing rules to accomplish the goal. We lose huge 2006 issues of runaway Republican abuse of power and giving the reins of government to theocrats. I don't like the looks of it and doubt America will benefit from it.
Posted by euzoius at May 23, 2005 07:31 PMIf we are going to save this country from the Republican theocrats and the Democrat cowards we must form a new party. We must stop thinking of ourselves as democrats or allied to Democrats, and we must do that now. Yeah, it's a long, hard road, but the idiot Democrats do nothing but sell us out time and again.
Posted by Ivor the Engine DFriver at May 23, 2005 07:32 PMThe democrats' leadership acknowledged their impending defeat and salvaged only the ability to gum up the works at a later time- when the GOP will again threaten the Byrd option, and they'll be forced once again to yield or lose a vote. All they got was a little face time on TV trying to look like they had forced a compromise, but try as they could, they looked like they knew they'd been rolled.
Its fun to finally see public scenes of congressional democrats with the puzzled look of realization that they really don't run things anymore.
We got our flagship nominees through while Frist gets to continue to threaten to change the cloture rules at a later time.
For Harry Reid it's "Saving Face While Losing Pants".
Posted by MarcusAgrippa at May 23, 2005 07:32 PM
I agree with euzoius.
Bush gets his judges. The Republicans agree (for the present) to keep the filibuster in place AS LONG AS THE Democrats don't use it.
I don't get it. What did we get? What good does the filibuster do for us if we agree to not use it. Republicans won't keep their word. If they were capable of that there wouldn't have been the issue of bypassing Senate rules in the first place. And when we do decide that we just have to use the filibuster we will go through this all over again.
This is not a rhetorical question: What did we get?
Posted by gail davis at May 23, 2005 07:47 PMTo all posters minus the inevitable trolls:
Jesus - what is it with liberals? Ever watched the Republicans at a time like this? Every - single - thing - is - trumpeted - as - a - victory.
Were positions reversed, they would spin this situation as "Victory - America Speaks Again!"
And here is everyone bemoaning the "narrow tactical pseudo-victory" (again - forget the trolls)
Time to put on your big-boy faces and forge ahead. This is not perfect - it's also not perfect for Bush, Frist, Dobson. I see more whining here than I do on the righty blogs. They're furious (and that should give some idea that there is some liberal gain here), and lefties are all second-guessing. Again.
Jesus - I have seen post after post here i nweeks gone by, saying "thank god for Reid". Time to wake the F__K up and face up to it - Reid has pulled this off with a best-possible outcome - shown everyone that there are Republicans who will part ways with the clan - that's a big victory. There is a possbility that this (however small) rift will open wider and that in future the "compromise" Republicans will do so again. And again . . ..
Many people here and other liberal blogs said "Good for Reid", and "Go for it Harry" before. Now, for God's sake, stick behind him. I get really angry with people who change their tune so quickly and easily. Support him. Who can do a better job than Harry? Whoever you are, please step up right now - I'm sure Harry would like some real help.
For one, I say "Good job Harry. How can we support your next foray into limiting the right-wing hate-machine?". However small, maybe, but still it's progress.
Posted by Paul at May 23, 2005 07:56 PMDoesn't matter what the "reality" is....the "appearence" is what counts with the ReThugs...and the appearence is that the Dems are LOSERS.
Posted by jillian at May 23, 2005 08:06 PMI look forward to seeing the Senate unanimously approve Antonin Scalia to be the next Chief Justice of the United States.
Wow, you're really gunning for your islamic style theocracy, aren't you?
Posted by ga6thdem at May 23, 2005 08:07 PMI for one am not happy that we've weakened Frist. Seriously, the man is in way over his head as the majority leader. He's running for president, and any Democrat will crush him. Weakening him makes it more likely that we'll face McCain or Giuliani. I'd rather have our candidate debating someone with blank eyes and the Dan Quayle deer-in-the-headlights look.
Posted by WindyCityLefty at May 23, 2005 08:14 PMPaul, so explain what it is that was "pulled off" here? I'm really asking.
As far as fantasy land cheerleading here don't expect it. Give me something to cheerlead. I don't think the actual elimination of the filibuster would be worse than a filibuster that Democrats are forbidden to use.
I think we would have been better off to go ahead and have the vote and then make our plans accordingly. This is just a state of limbo and it will all most likely happen over again.
If you think that Reid is forging some kind of understanding with moderate Republicans then say so, but every experience we have had so far say that just aint so.
Getting more Senators and Representative elected to Congress is much more important to us than spending so much energy saving something we may not be able to save anyway and trying to influencence a SC nomination we just don't have the votes to influence.
Posted by gail davis at May 23, 2005 08:17 PMI don't know, I don't know. Better to have fought to the death on this hill and have the vote. I always think that. Some won't take the risk.
I don't like it, but then if we'd just won the election we wouldn't be in this spot, would we?
[shrugs] We better win the House next year. We're running out of time, if we haven't already.
Posted by paradox at May 23, 2005 08:21 PMfrist isn't one of them, so do you think they care if the immoral dobson tosses fristy aside like so much consumed KFC bones?
Nope.
I suppose that Harry will have the high ground when ricky and tommy and billy et al reneg on the deal, which they surely will.
They didn't quite agree not to use it. Almost, but not quite. And when they do, oh the screeching we will hear, there's nothing extradordinary about this judge blather lie lie lie...
Looking forward to scalia getting a promo? Wow, that's a sick mind there, looking forward to that self righteous ass getting anything but what he truly deserves reveals a mind in thrall to the seven deadly sins.
Jeebus, there's some screwed up people in this country.
Just have to hope it isn't too late.
Gail, what I'm saying is:
- under the circumstances (reality rules), what Reid has done in my opinion is the best outcome possible. Take it to the brink? Sure. What about losing at the brink. It's a tradeoff that everyone has to make in the real world
- some Republicans did not side with Frist. I am unable to see how that can be construed as bad - in any way whatsoever. "Forging an understanding"? Forget it - these people are not to be trusted. But - they did go against the wishes of Frist; we need to take advantage where we can get it.
- a small chink in the armor has been displayed. Dobson's statement is terse and he is clearly angered. That's good. The people Dobson will put in there to "punish" the waverers will by definition be more rabid than those who caved. A move to the right is indicated. That will lose some people to the (relatively-speaking) left. They *may* pick up more people as they move further right, but that's not guaranteed (if it was, the further-right candidates would have been in there already). There's an element of risk in changing players.
I am not a cheerleader - I am known for pessimism and seeing the bad in things. I believe it is realistic to see this as a "good" outcome - better than going to the brink and losing. Sure there's bad, but all I have to do is scan the Right-blogs and see that they are furious. They absolutely do NOT see it as a win (inevitable spin notwithstanding)
They are better at spinning - and *that's* where the perception comes in. We did not *lose* - maybe we did not come out 100% on top, but it's all relative to where we could have been with a lesser man than Reid.
I worship no heroes at all, but pragmatically, if there's a better man than Reid, someone please give him Harry's number so he can help out.
Posted by Paul at May 23, 2005 08:31 PMAs this story unfolds over the next few days, Reid's endgame should be revealed. He has been far too cunning to have been outsmarted easily. My bets are still on him getting the best of Frist on this one.
Posted by Jesusland Joe at May 23, 2005 08:31 PMPaul---are you done bludgeoning us for speaking our minds? I'm aware the right "trumpets every single thing as a victory"---I just don't find such tactics intellectually persuasive, do you? This wasn't Reid's deal----it's presented as the work of some Senate Democrats who didn't want to force a vote. So stop worrying about nonexistent Reid bashing here. Either Reid was forced into accepting this deal by this wayward group of Democrats or he concluded he likely didn't have the votes to defeat the rule change, and didn't want to go through with the "threat" of a Senate slowdown, that it wouldn't play well politically. It's a tough call for him, I'm just saying we have given up a lot (in my view) by not forcing the Republicans to carry out their illegal, power-abusing, Senate-undermining rule change in full view of the country. It doesn't mean, I don't think, that I no longer support Reid or have confidence in him. Republican Robots are told everything is a victory and not to question the strategy. I don't think that's our way, even if it makes you angry.
Posted by euzoius at May 23, 2005 08:46 PMSeven Democratic Senators chose their country over their party. Good for them. Seems to be a lot of 'red' state Senators signing on here.
Some other people chosing their country over their party:
"The candidate is Otto Banks, a 33-year-old African-American and the biggest vote-getter in Harrisburg, a predominantly black and overwhelmingly Democratic city where a Republican hasn't been elected to the city council in nearly 20 years.
Like everyone else on the all-black city council, Mr. Banks was a Democrat -- that is, until this March when he announced he had become disenchanted and was joining the Republicans."
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20050518-101030-3854r.htm
and this one must surely hurt:
"WSJ LocalNews Click here.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Former state Democratic party chairman changes to GOP
Associated Press
RALEIGH, N.C. - Former state Democratic Party chairman Lawrence Davis has switched his affiliation to the Republican Party, saying his personal position on issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion differed from those of Democrats."
Good news always travels in threes.
Posted by peter at May 23, 2005 08:53 PMSo Reid just helped McCain split the Republican monolith into Theocrats vs. Moderates, the Majority Leader couldn't deliver for SpongeDob (who just got done trashing his predecessor), Karl Rove just discovered that some of the strings he's been pulling aren't attached to anything anymore, and you're not happy?
Posted by The Crow at May 23, 2005 08:54 PMThis is a victory for America. The moderates in both parties had enough guts to live up the the Senate's tradition of compromise. Amongst other things, this means that enough GOP senators consider an eventual (read within their own carrers) return to a Democratic majority realistic. They didn't act as if they expect to be in power forever. This is a victory for America.
The Senate has always been the saucer that cools the drink. The Constitutional tradition worked. THE CENTER HELD. This is a rebuke of the extreme right. They tried a coup in the Senate and failed. No one else has mentioned this yet. Yes, they have other cards to play, but they lost this hand. THE MACHINE FAILED!
The extreme right is drunk with power. This is a splash of cold water reality in their collective face. This nation was taken to the brink. Good Senators from both parties did the right thing.
No, this isn't perfect. One could argue that given America's demographic changes a short term GOP victory would have set the Democrats up for unchecked control in a few years. Maybe. We've got to get past '06 and '08 before we see what kind of paradiem we're looking at long term.
For tonight at least, the extreme right has been beaten. The center-left coalition that will have to pick up the pieces after the ravages of Bu$hism become unbearable needed a win of some kind. Tonight is that first victory. It can, in time, be built upon. Even if the compromise comes unraveled later the machine has still been beat. They are not undefeated anymore. Even if it isn't apparent for a while things will never be the same. This is a victory for America.
Posted by rlprather at May 23, 2005 08:56 PM
Well, my last comment got et, so I'll move on.
They believe that the Constitution speaks to the president consulting with the Senate. And they encourage him to do so.
Saps, fools, tools.
It surely amazes me that grown men and women who've been playing politics for so long would even think this is going to happen.
Yeah, he'll consult all right. With one of the loons like dog sex or that idiot from OK. I seem to recall something about thomas calling the cops to arrest the Democrats for some reason or another, I seem to remember them not letting the Democrats read the un-patriot act, I seem to recall them calling former Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle a traitor, a TRAITOR, to his country, along with every other Democrat except for the actual traitor zell spit miller.
I have no doubt he'll consult. With salazar and joementum. And then do whatever cheney you tells him to do.
Posted by Duckman GR at May 23, 2005 08:58 PMI see the compromise as a moderate loss in the short term (if lifetime appointments of a couple-three wingnut federal judges is moderate and short term), but an overall plus and a large challenge for us progressives.
It's a plus because it retains the essence of the filibuster, untouched. Because the agreement leaves "extraordinary circumstances" undefined, the term therefore must mean whatever 41 Senators think it means. In other words, the filibuster remains in full force, except for the specifically-exempted judges.
The challenge is to elect more Democrats in 2006. Because the Senate rewrites its rules every time a new Congress comes in, this agreement ends in January 2007. If the nuts still rule in such numbers at that time, they'll remove the filibuster at that juncture.
So, a word to the wise -- get out there and work-work-work to elect good people to the Senate. And the House, and in your state, and in your town, and ...
Posted by N in Seattle at May 23, 2005 09:01 PMReid has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. I cannot agree that this represents any kind of victory for the Dems. Of course the rightees are angry and agrieved. They always are. They control all the levers of government, and constantly act as though they are the victim.
What did the Dems win? Nothing! The judges they most opposed will get in, and they have lost the high ground that they were gaining in public opinion. Had Frist unleashed the "Nuclear Option", it would have blown up in his face. You know, "blowback". It always happens, and the public favored the Dems position. All of that is nuetralized.
Had the Dems forced the showdown, they may have won. But even if they lost on the rules change, they would have shown that they stand for something. That is something that costs them elections time and again. Once again they've caved rather than stand. Don't expect to see any gains in '06. The Democrats will surely refuse to stand up and assume leadership. Frankly I never saw Reid as a strong leader type, and this just confirms it for me.
Posted by Oaklander at May 23, 2005 09:11 PMOverall, since Reid didn't have the votes, I think it was a good deal.
Right now, the Circuit courts are stacked with Republicans, and the current nominees who are being granted up-or-down votes -- Brown (DC), Owen (11th) and Pryor (11th) -- aren't going to make that much difference in the balance of things. The 11th out of Atlanta is a wingnut nightmare, and there is already a 5-4 majority on the DC court.
On the other hand, those that are not being granted up-or-down votes could affect the balance of certain key circuit positions, and the others are just downright dangerous:
William Myers - 9th - The only Circuit Court remaining with a strong Democratic majority is the 9th in San Francisco. Myers is the only one of Bush's noxious appointment earmarked for the 9th. Keeping him out of there was crucial.
Henry Saad - 6th Circuit - The 6th in Cincinnati is right now evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. Letting Saad on would've given Republicans a clear majority.
Brett Kavanaugh (DC) - Ken Starr's protege, he co-authored Starr Report's section on grounds for impeachment. He also played key role in defending BushCo's unprescedented claims to executive branch secrecy. There was just no way the Democrats could let this guy be repaid for that kind of partisan hackery.
William Haynes - 9th Circuit - played a central role in the decision to hold American citizens as enemy combatants with no access to courts or counsel, and also the decision to hold detaineees at Guantanamo without protection of the Geneva Convention. According to the People for the American Way, "His duties include developing and overseeing legal standards for military personnel which failed to prevent and may have actually helped produce torture and mistreatment of US detainees in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere."
I know that it's becoming unfashionable to use Hitler references today, but this whole bullshit reminds me of when the world made a "compromise" with Hitler and just let him have Poland. So the dems compromised a morally and legally defensible position to get buttfucked by only 3 of 10 wacko appointments? 1 penetrations or 10, the virginity is lost. This is no compromise, it's being a cheap legislative slut.
Posted by Greg at May 23, 2005 09:23 PMThe Democratic compromisers:
Cmon,
This wasnt the title fight, this was just a skirmish
when a supreme court vacancy opens up that will be the time to fight to the death. This will means that the POS that Bush Nominates will have to wait while republicans rewrite senate rules a further embarrasment to the nominee
Okay, I've vented a bit.
Maybe it wasn't so bad.
Because when bushco does what we all know they will do, we can surely use this against them, or at least have the opportunity to use it against them.
Dkos has a good diary on it, calm reasoned analysis, might be worth taking a look at.
Posted by Duckman GR at May 23, 2005 09:57 PMThe Republicans got their extremist judges in the hand. The Democrats got promises in the bush - and even then only as long as their use of the filibuster is ok with the Repubs who will now use Priscilla Owens as the standards for what is ordinary.
Fucking Democratic losers.
Posted by The Fool at May 23, 2005 10:17 PMAs many have implied or stated directly, the GOP rolled the dems on this. We got our judges, and when the Supreme Court appointments come up, we can point out that they cant be egregious enough to filibuster, since you already passed on the present crop. When the threats to filibuster actually occur, we can change the cloture rules in response. 3 Scalias, please.
With all this whining about the time-honored rules of the Senate, why we dont just go back to the time honored filibuster of old- where the senator conducting the filibuster must speak continuously from a standing position? No real filibuster has ever held up Senate business for more that 30 hours, if I remember correctly.
Posted by Marcus Agrippa at May 23, 2005 10:32 PMThis discussion would make any normal person never think about politics again. In fact this discussion might be why most Americans dont give a crap.
Everyone misunderstands every one else. Every few minutes some jackass pops in with an off topic post. No one has it right.
You are all idiots. Get lives. I am going back to reading Hello Magazine.
Posted by EGC at May 24, 2005 01:15 AMHonestly, I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks that this is hardly an complete victory for the Democrats. I am appalled that these three judges are going to be foisted upon the American people for the remainder of their natural lives. And in return the Democrats got...what, exactly?
Call me crazy, but I thought that the whole reason that we went to the brink of nuclear war over this issue was *because* of Owen and Brown. Since they are now almost certain to be confirmed, what did I miss? How is this a win?