Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Here's the Deal (Senate GOP "Deal ensures votes on seven of eight nominations")
american spectator ^ | 5/24/2005 | The Prowler

Posted on 05/23/2005 9:19:07 PM PDT by watsonfellow

Here's the Deal

By The Prowler

Published 5/24/2005 12:09:38 AM

"There is no way this agreement that breaks Democratic obstruction can be spun any way other than as a victory for Republicans and the Bush Administration," said a Republican Senate leadership aide late Monday night, regarding the agreement reached by 14 senators to avert a showdown vote on the so-called nuclear option that would have ended Democratic filibustering of Bush judicial nominees.

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."

That said, Republican Judiciary Committee staffers said it would have been difficult to clear Saad for confirmation, regardless of the Democrats' unethical behavior in his case. Democratic Judiciary Committee staff and Senate Democratic leadership coordinated an attack against Saad by providing and then sending Sen. Harry Reid a memo detailing uncorroborated raw interview notes from Saad's confidential FBI background check.

"Saad has served on the bench in Michigan, he has been a public figure for years, he has had close associations with several Senate and House members from the state of Michigan," says a Washington lobbyist who has met with Saad on occasion. "This is an honorable man whose nomination was badly damaged by Democrats. Any future nominee should be aware of what the Democrats will do to destroy a good conservative."

If there are any potential losers in this deal, it is the moderate Republicans who have put their reputations on the line with not only their Republican colleagues, but also conservative voters. "If Myers doesn't get a vote, if a reasonable Supreme Court nominee does not receive a vote, or has his or her nomination blocked, then those moderate Republicans should be held accountable by not only the caucus but their constituents," said the Republican Judiciary staffer.

HOW TRUE TO THEIR word Democrats will be may become apparent in about a month, when Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist is expected to announce his retirement. Already in Washington rumors are swirling that current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales may be under serious consideration for the empty slot left vacant after one of the sitting justices is elevated to fill Rehnquist's role.. "You look at what he hasn't done in his few months at Justice," says a former White House staffer, "and it makes you think he's really been looking ahead and trying to keep as clear from controversy as he can."

Gonzales has managed to sidestep taking a position on the Terri Schiavo legal battle, and beyond stating his basic support for the eight judicial nominees in limbo, he has avoided being embroiled in this current debate. As well, he has made very few public appearances where anything remotely controversial could have been uttered.

"Everything points to a Gonzales nomination," says a lobbyist aware of the White House thinking on prospective judicial nominees.

One school of thought related to the threat of a constitutional "nuclear" option was that it would ensure the Bush White House an easier time in putting forward a solid conservative as the president's first nomination to the Supreme Court. But Gonzales would be unacceptable to just about every conservative group in Washington and beyond.

"I don't know of any conservative who worked to reelect this president who would be satisfied with a Gonzales nomination," says a Senate Judiciary staffer. "This president was reelected because conservatives want to see a conservative on the Court. If the president has a second opportunity, then perhaps there is room for Gonzales. But only after the president fulfills his promise to voters."


TOPICS: Front Page News; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: 109th; filibuster; jellyfrist; ussenate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last
To: watsonfellow
So long as those 12 stay together, they can force the agenda on anything- they would control the board. If they vote in a block, they deny the GOP the majority, and deny the DEMS the filibuster.

The only question is how united they remain. In that sense, that coalition is a hazard, and the GOP leadership should do everything in its power to pulverize it- before NcCAin, Graham and Warner get too "high" on their own power. The GOP cannot allow itself to be controled by a small minority of its own.
21 posted on 05/23/2005 9:35:19 PM PDT by sirthomasthemore (I go to my execution as the King's humble servant, but God's first!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zivasmate
Does anyone think the "exceptional circumstances" clause will not be abused again and again by the Demorats?

The only upside I can see to that provision is that it actually gives the nervous RINOs a chance to "change their minds" and vote "nuclear" if indeed the rats abuse the "exceptional circumstances" excuse for denying a nominee an up/down vote.

22 posted on 05/23/2005 9:35:22 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow
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.

Hmm, the Dims appear to have a different take.

23 posted on 05/23/2005 9:35:34 PM PDT by CFC__VRWC ("Anytime a liberal squeals in outrage, an angel gets its wings!" - gidget7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RandyRep

What scum sucking bottom feeding lowlife politcians don't understand is that they have a duty to perform

damned if this doesn't remind me of a scene in Braveheart when Wallace asks them if they might not at least like to Negotiate themselves a better deal (before they sold out)


24 posted on 05/23/2005 9:36:10 PM PDT by TexasTransplant (NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSET)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow
also, three other Bush nominees will eventually receive an up or down confirmation vote as well

This is not what the agreement says, nor does it say Saad and Myers will be filibustered (just says they might be).

25 posted on 05/23/2005 9:37:40 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow

Here's my PROTEST, the Reps will NEVER again get DIRECTLY another PENNY FROM ME!

P*zzy arse Rep can KISS my sweet hetero Arse from this day on forward!

David L. Miller

APEX NC!


26 posted on 05/23/2005 9:37:40 PM PDT by funkywbr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow
Trusting a Democrat is like trusting a jihadist.

As soon as you turn your back they will plunge a dagger in and saw off a head.

Compromise with evil and you loose every time.
27 posted on 05/23/2005 9:37:50 PM PDT by TASMANIANRED (Democrats haven't had a new idea since Karl Marx.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow
no one anticipates that such a situation [extraordinary circumstances] will arise, assuming Democrats keep their promise.

ROTFALOL

28 posted on 05/23/2005 9:38:46 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
The only upside I can see to that provision is that it actually gives the nervous RINOs a chance to "change their minds" and vote "nuclear" if indeed the rats abuse the "exceptional circumstances" excuse for denying a nominee an up/down vote.

The only mind-changing I see RINOs doing is deciding to vote against President Bush's nominees on the Senate floor once Larry Flynt dumps his latest load of sewage on the nominees' heads.

29 posted on 05/23/2005 9:39:19 PM PDT by CFC__VRWC ("Anytime a liberal squeals in outrage, an angel gets its wings!" - gidget7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

Why were they so afraid to vote for the "nuclear option" in the first place? Without partaking in this silly compromise.

You can bet the mortgage the Demorats will use the "exceptional circumstances" clause until the cows come home. They will invoke it for every nominee for the Supreme Court who is conservative. They will claim "he or she is out of the "mainstream".


30 posted on 05/23/2005 9:40:42 PM PDT by Zivasmate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow
Thank goodness! We have a deal:


31 posted on 05/23/2005 9:40:56 PM PDT by atomicweeder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud

Once again, the Pubbies blinked, and McCain has gotten at least partial revenge against George W. for his 2000 primary defeat. We're told the Dems have preserved their "right to filibuster" Bush's judiciary nominees, as though such a "right" actually existed. The result: NO Bush Supreme Court nomination will be endorsed by the Senate.


32 posted on 05/23/2005 9:41:13 PM PDT by Elsiejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: atomicweeder

PEACE IN OUR TIME!


33 posted on 05/23/2005 9:41:19 PM PDT by Fledermaus (Nothing in this RINO deal guarantees Brown, Owen and Pryor will be CONFIRMED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: sefarkas

Another GOP victory can't keep you from whining.


34 posted on 05/23/2005 9:41:26 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow
I think this deal is better than we initially thought.

The point is that there DID NOT NEED TO BE A DEAL AT ALL!!
55 - 44 - 1.

35 posted on 05/23/2005 9:41:32 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sirthomasthemore
You said..."So long as those 12 stay together, they can force the agenda on anything they would control the board. If they vote in a block, they deny the GOP the majority, and deny the DEMS the filibuster."

BINGO...excellent point. You're unique in recognizing the danger in having a so called 'moderate' block be the apparent power brokers in the Senate.

What does this deal portend for a future conservative agenda?
36 posted on 05/23/2005 9:42:14 PM PDT by Dat Mon (will work for clever tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow
The problem with the 'pubbies'... it's simple: THEY'RE NOT STREET FIGHTERS (like the Dems).

Until the republicans are willing to go to the mat for principle (other than getting re-elected) then they can be rolled.

The irony of it is, they think that they're caving in is for the principle of getting em re-elected when all the while, it's probably the icing on the cake that will guarantee that they won't get re-elcted (e.g. Spectre, Graham, DeWine).

If only we could be as tough as the dems... sigh

37 posted on 05/23/2005 9:43:42 PM PDT by blue jeans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: funkywbr

I think some of the comments here are worth reading.

But, let's put things in perspective.

I will bet anyone here a steak dinner (in Singapore! You have to provide your own transportation) that all the nominations, save Saad's, are approved by the Senate before the end of the summer.

I will further bet that we will see no filibuster on any other Bush judicial nomination, including for the Supreme Court.

What happened to Saad is horrible.......but there are other conservatives to nominate.

If you don't feel like giving to the NRSC and the RNC, that's your decision.

But I implore you to send money to deserving conservatives like Mark Kennedy in Minnesota, Hoeven in North Dakota, Steele in Maryland, and other individual candidates.

Our work has not been in vain. If we had not gained four seats in the Senate in 2004, we would not be days away from having Owens, Brown, and Pryor confirmed.

Let's keep up the fight. Remember what happened in 2000 when many conservatives stayed home? The Dems won four seats in the Senate and Bush almost lost.

Let's not repeat that in 2006.

We have a good chance to pick up five seats in 2006.

We are competitive in the following Dem seats,

Washington
Nebraska
North Dakota
Minnesota
Michigan
Wisconsin
Florida
Maryland
West Virginia
New Jersey
and suprisingly Vermont.


Victory will not happen overnight, and overturning a generation of judicial arrogance will not go away instantly.

Do not give up the fight.

Do not abandon politics or the GOP.


38 posted on 05/23/2005 9:44:01 PM PDT by watsonfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow

Sounds like a Republican behind scenes is trying to stem the fury building at this loss and unacceptable betrayal. We asked for an up or down vote on all nominees, was that too much to ask? NOOOOOOOOOOO!!

The RINO's can go to hell and forget spinning this as a conscientious victorious stand for principle! These people can forget trying to lie to us and suggest this was a victory. We HAD a victory and the RINO's gave it away. We spent years setting the stage for victory and the RINO's BETRAYED us to save the Democrats and assert a power coup for themselves.

Well, tell this anonymous source we are FURIOUS and will remain so. People will pay.


39 posted on 05/23/2005 9:44:49 PM PDT by Soul Seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow
"Let's hold our fire here and not act like crazy liberals. I think this deal is better than we initially thought"

It seems that the Dem's Jedi mind trick has worked on you too.

40 posted on 05/23/2005 9:47:55 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson