But here's the deal. IF the Democrats break their word (a good assumption) then McCain and most of the other RINOs will beel obligated to vote to end judicial filibusters in the future. That vote which was averted by the deal will be brought up again only this time it will be passed with support from the RINOs who were recalcitrant this time due to the Democrats breaking their word. Think forward about two chess moves.
"...then McCain and most of the other RINOs will beel obligated to vote to end judicial filibusters in the future."
Heh. (Yoda voice) Trusting soul you are. Screw us again they shall. See you will.
Qwinn
Before too many people start bashing Sen. Frist, I thought it appropriate to put his own words on this thread. From a 5/24/05 mass E-mail to interested parties (including me):
As promised, an update on the judicial nominee front ...
Last night, an arrangement was reached by fourteen of my colleagues. I was not a party to it, and here's why...
I do not agree with it because it does not get the job done of ensuring fair, up or down votes on all judicial nominees sent to the Senate by the President.
It is my firm belief that--on principle--all judicial nominees deserve an up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate.
The new understanding, if followed in good faith, affirms my principle to some extent. It marks some break in the partisan obstruction of the past two years, and ensures that seven outstanding jurists-including Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor--will get the fair up or down votes they have long deserved.
But it does not grant fairness to all other jurists. It still allows mindless filibusters to be triggered at the whim of a minority more interested in obstruction than progress.
And that is a shame.
So make no mistake, the Constitutional Option remains on the table. If the minority again acts in bad faith--if they resume their campaign of mindless judicial obstruction--I will NOT hesitate to call it to a vote.
Not for a second.
For too long on judicial nominees, the filibuster was abused to facilitate partisanship, and subvert principle.
We have exposed the injustice of judicial obstruction in the last Congress, and advanced the core Constitutional principle that all judicial nominees deserve a fair up or down vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
So the Senate will begin to execute this arrangement, with a vote up or down on Priscilla Owen. Giving up their minority-party led obstructionism, the Senate invoked cloture on her today by a vote of 81-18. Priscilla Owen--after four years, two weeks and two days--will finally receive the fair, up or down vote she deserves.
And, mark my words, more judges like her will follow in the days ahead. I hope the minority will respect the will of the majority, and give judges the courtesy, the respect, of a fair, up or down vote.
Bill Frist
This would happen in a world with reasonable men and those that feel shame. Unfortunately, the real world we face are fill with people who seek one and only one thing -- power over our lives. This so called compromise in NO way gives the Reps any advantage. The Demos single goal is to destroy this Republic and morph it into a Social Democracy. Reasoning and agreements mean nothing to the demos. The only way to restore this Republics greatness is if the Demos are destroyed politically and the big spending Reps reigned in.
Beldar Blog has posted a legal analysis that shows that regardless of the language that the Republicans think is in the agreement, in fact Republicans have committed to not breaking the agreement unless they believe that the Democrats have broken it. Furthermore, the language is so loose that no matter what the Dems do, they haven't broken the agreement.
He says Senator Ted will have these guys for lunch if they break it, waving around the document that they signed.
Read here for the details, but it's a compelling piece.
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2005/05/liveblogging_th.html
I think that all seven of these Republicans failed strategy, negotiating and management 101. How can these people even imagine any career advancement if they have demonstrated so overwhelmingly the fundamental inability to find good counsel and to drive a hard bargain? Why not just bend over and stop the pretence?
I don't think this is a correct reading of the problem. The core problem is that the RINO's like the supreme court the way it is. They don't want a conservative supreme court. Neither do Arlen Specter or Charlie Hagel. So there are nine ostensible R's who would like to vote against the president's nominees, if the nominees are like Scalia or Thomas. Voting for the 'senate tradition' of the filibuster is a way to vote against the President but have some political cover. That is the impetus behind this so-called 'compromise.' It gives the squishes cover to do what they want to do anyway.
It's not like the squishes will be interpreting the 'compromise' aggressively to find a way to vote with the president. Quite the opposite. And the whole point of the compromise was to make it easier for the squishes to do the wrong thing when push comes to shove.
The question is, will the Republican leadership be willing to take the steps necessary to put sufficient pressure on the squishes so that the price of betrayal is higher than the benefit of doing what the squishes would prefer to do? At this point, the President had better step in because I don't think Frist has it in him.