Many fear that Senate deal could splinter

St. Petersburg Times ^ | May 25, 2005 | ANITA KUMAR

[Cincinatus' Wife]

WASHINGTON - A day after a group of centrist senators averted a showdown that threatened the business and cooperation in the U.S. Senate, negotiators of the deal basked in the glow of victory.

But beneath the relief that the crisis was averted, many at the Capitol on Tuesday worried that the Senate remains as deeply divided as before the agreement.

Members of both parties complained that the bargain over the president's contentious judicial nominees cost them too much.

The negotiators - dubbed the Gang of 14 - have no plans to meet further on other issues; the deal is not a sign of unity on other issues.

The vague language in the agreement suggests the cease-fire may not last.

Some senators and congressional experts only expect the deal to hold up through one group of judicial nominees - perhaps a few months - or until Bush nominates a Supreme Court justice, putting the Senate right back where it was a few days ago.

"It's a temporary fix and it's going to come apart soon," said Bill Frenzel, a former Republican House member who studies Congress at the Brookings Institution. "Then we'll have a crisis all over. I think it could be a lot sooner than anyone thinks."

* * *

The Senate had prepared for an all-night debate Monday, expecting to end the next day with Republicans voting to change Senate rules to stop Democrats from using the filibuster - a parliamentary procedure to prolong debate - to block appeals court nominees.

But 14 senators - seven Republicans and seven Democrats - announced a deal that would allow a vote on some of Bush's most conservative nominees if Republicans stop threatening to strip Democrats of their ability to filibuster.

As a result, after four years of Democratic filibusters, Senate confirmation of Priscilla Owen to the U.S. appeals court is expected today. "It's about time," President Bush said. "These nominees have waited years for an up-or-down on the Senate floor, and now they'll get one."

As the Senate began deliberating Owen's nomination Tuesday, the debate continued over the long-term impact of the deal.

The compromise was hailed on Capitol Hill as a way to resolve the bitter impasse and move on with other Senate business, including an energy bill.

Reporters mobbed the Gang of 14 as they walked the halls, asking if they would tackle other divided issues, such as Social Security, or even try to take over the Senate from its partisan leaders.

"I took a risk. I think the Senate will be stronger for it," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and a negotiator. "This group has set in place momentum."

Other senators and outside experts, though, were skeptical, saying the partisanship that brought the Senate to the brink remains.

"They are not middle of the road," said Richard Born, a congressional expert at Vassar College. "The Senate is made up of true believers."

Conservative lawmakers and their allies, led by evangelical activist groups like the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, were irked at the deal because they had hoped to change the rules before the president is called upon to appoint a new Supreme Court justice. After all, they put the GOP in power, and they expect and usually get results.

"The seven Republicans who participated in the deal need to explain what Republicans gained in this "compromise' that they did not already have," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. "Peace won by the compromise of principles is a short-lived achievement."

Sen. George Allen, R-Va., criticized the deal as a "major disappointment on principle," because it did not guarantee a yes-or-no vote for all of Bush's nominees. Allen said he had been spoiling for a fight.

"It's disappointing for all of us who believe in the principle that persons should be accorded the fairness and due process of an up or down vote," he said. "It doesn't solve the problem. I wanted action."

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid scheduled a "unity event" to claim victory, but just as conservatives were frustrated, liberals were equally displeased. They had portrayed the nominees as right-wing ideologues and had pledged to do everything they could to stop them; the moderate Democrats who signed the compromise robbed them of their ability to do that.

Rep. Melvin Watt, a North Carolina Democrat and head of the Congressional Black Caucus, said he opposed the deal to "trade judges who oppose our civil rights for a temporary filibuster cease-fire. This deal is more of a capitulation than a compromise."

* * *

The senators involved in the negotiations were cautiously optimistic about a new spirit of cooperation. "If that good will can extend over to other business then that's good news," said Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat and negotiator. "If good will springs out in the Senate, that would certainly be a benefit."

But they don't anticipate meeting on other issues. Even John McCain, R-Ariz., a chief architect of the compromise, called the group's impact on judicial nominees "an anomaly."

The agreement opened the way for yes-or-no votes on three of Bush's judicial picks and said the Democrats can filibuster two others. It said Democrats would filibuster future nominees only under "extraordinary circumstances," a vague term that senators were still trying to define Tuesday.

"I would hope this would last, and I hope they mean what they say," Florida Sen. Mel Martinez said.

But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has said repeatedly he was not a party to the negotiations, said on the Senate floor that he will not hesitate to try to change the rules - and eliminate filibusters - if he feels it necessary.

"I believe the memorandum of understanding makes modest progress, but falls far short of guaranteeing up or down votes on judicial nominees," he said. "It needs to be carefully monitored and executed in good faith."

The deal is expected to last through the 109th Congress - which ends next year - but Born and other experts expect that once the Senate gets through this group of nominees, the feud will erupt again. That would be especially true if Bush has an opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice.

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said he would have rather fought to the finish. "I hope the serial filibusters end," he said. "I hope it will last in perpetuity. But it may work. It may not."

[Cincinatus' Wife]

[Editorializing in news story - as usual]***......Conservative lawmakers and their allies, led by evangelical activist groups like the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, were irked at the deal because they had hoped to change the rules before the president is called upon to appoint a new Supreme Court justice. After all, they put the GOP in power, and they expect and usually get results.....***

[MIT - "McCain in training"....Laura Ingram] ***...."I took a risk. I think the Senate will be stronger for it," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and a negotiator. "This group has set in place momentum."...***

[14 people do cya and it's a spirit of cooperation in the Senate] ***....The senators involved in the negotiations were cautiously optimistic about a new spirit of cooperation. "If that good will can extend over to other business then that's good news," said Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat and negotiator. "If good will springs out in the Senate, that would certainly be a benefit."....***

[Cincinatus' Wife]

U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) gestures as Senators L-R, John Warner (R-VA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), look on after McCain announced a reaching of an agreement on judicial confirmation fight on Capitol Hill in Washington May 23, 2005. Fourteen U.S. Senate moderates struck a deal on Monday to avert a historic showdown vote over U.S. President George W. Bush's stalled judicial nominees, crafting a bipartisan compromise that includes a commitment to clear the way for confirmation votes on three of five disputed nominees. The agreement was reached less than 24 hours before the Republican-led Senate was to decide whether to strip Democrats of their power to block Bush's candidates for federal courts. (Stringer/Usa/Reuters)

[frankiep]

Why do we have a Senate AND a House of Representatives? REPEAL THE 17TH AMENDMENT!

[skinkinthegrass]

Thank, CW...let's hope this "agreement" Blows-up in "The Appeasement Seven" Faces.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

The Senate is supposed to gum up the works - I mean, be wise and deliberative (cough).

[backhoe]

Cincinatus' Wife Why do we have a Senate AND a House of Representatives? REPEAL THE 17TH AMENDMENT!

I'm beginning to wonder why we should tolerate the shenannigans of any of these clowns who claim to be "representatives."

Maybe we should abolish both houses and go to a direct vote. Up or down, win or lose, and at least the laws and regulations passed would have to be simple enough for the average voter to comprehend.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Indeed!

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said he would have rather fought to the finish. "I hope the serial filibusters end," he said. "I hope it will last in perpetuity. But it may work. It may not."

Dang, Trent sounds like he's standing back up on his hind legs again.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Now we don't want to do that backhoe.

It would dimish the power of small states and give power to metro areas.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

That gave me a laugh.


A bit late I'd say.

But thanks for the thought Trent.

[fivekid]

It seems these days metro areas are small states....

[Pusterfuss]

[devolve]

Joe Biden has already said he would still vote against some of the "radical judges" up for confirmation.

I watched him last night on satellite feed and Biden was more nasty and vicious than ever before.

He is admitting he will break the so-called "agreement" already - Biden and Byrd never even signed the "memorandum of understanding".

I wonder if a 7 RINOS signed it....

How can lying thought-stealing plagiarist sit in the US Senate?

[backhoe]

No, we don't want to do that backhoe. It would diminish the power of small states and give power to metro areas.

That's one problem- and another is of course, that a direct democracy means 50.00000000001% of the vote tells everyone else what to do- minorities have no protections. Three wolves, a sheep, and a vote on dinner...

But honestly, I'm sick of these clowns and their "my esteemed colleague" nonsense. They are so inbred and isolated from real life that it is sickening. They need a wake-up call from the people who pay their exorbitant salaries and perks.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Yes and LIBERAL as all get out.

Like LA:

Senate Truce Faces Test of Bush's Next Nominations - A polarizing choice, especially for Supreme Court, could unravel the deal, both sides say - [LA Times - Ronald Brownstein and Janet Hook]***...."It totally depends on Bush," said Ron Klain, who as deputy White House counsel and Justice Department chief of staff helped guide two Supreme Court nominations for President Clinton. "If Bush picks someone for the Supreme Court who is middle-of-the-road … that person is going to get confirmed easily, and then this agreement will hold. If Bush chooses a different course and picks someone of an ideological stripe like these more controversial appellate court nominees, this agreement … will unravel very shortly after that."...***

[Cincinatus' Wife]

I hear ya.

[YaYa123]

Good fiction novels require a renegade general taking over the U.S. Government. Not any more. More likely, the villain will be a maniacal, power hungry, revenge obsessed U.S.Senator.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

...How can lying thought-stealing plagiarist sit in the US Senate?....

What a great question.

How can a lying, drunkard who left a woman to die, sit in the U.S. Senate?

[frankiep]

Maybe we should abolish both houses and go to a direct vote. Up or down, win or lose, and at least the laws and regulations passed would have to be simple enough for the average voter to comprehend.

I like it but it's not practical ;)

We are supposed to have a Republican form of government (I don't mean republican party :). Let the House of Representatives be elected by direct vote as they are now. Repeal the 17th Amendment and return to having senators appointed by their elected state legislatures. Do this and we will see far fewer "maverick" senators selling out for the cameras and the adoration of the MSM. Conservative republican states, with conservative republican legislatures, will appoint conservative republican senators and not media wh0re "moderates". Seriously, we basically have nothing more than two Houses of Representatives with the only difference being how long the terms are.

[G.Mason]

Is it just me, or are these boobs think they are tinkering with an "Erector Set"?

On the bright side, McCain has finally convinced, even the most naive among us, that he isn't ... very bright.

R.I.P. McCain. May you and your fellow Rhinos twist in the wind.