Who’ll Have the Last Laugh over Judicial Filibusters? - (the sweet side of the "sour deal!")

HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE.COM ^ | JUNE 7, 2005 | BARNEY BRENNER

[zbigreddogz]

Um. DUH.

I wasn't crazy about the deal either, but it was never a defeat, all the conservatives who were declaring defeat were wrong, and it's obvious that we have the upper hand in the fight. We never gave that up, and we won't.

If the Dems fillibuster the SC nominee, they will lose, and they know it.

[Theresawithanh]

I listened to the talk radio here in the SF Bay area and the ranting against the deal, and it was rabid! I don't like the tendency of folks like McCain to cross the aisle and lick boots, but figured maybe there was something in it that would turn out good for Republicans. If this guy's right, there is.

[SkyPilot]

The dishonestly named “nuclear option” is not only still intact, but the political fallout from its still-possible use – which will be more justified than ever if it’s needed...

I hated this "deal." But the author is correct on this point. I thought the only bright side was that once the Democrats betrayed the "deal", the Republicans would look good by comparison if they brought up the "nuclear option." The MSM will still scream bloody murder, but fewer people will listen.

[CHARLITE]

"If the Dems fillibuster the SC nominee, they will lose, and they know it."

You're right. Filibustering any of President Bush's SC nominees would be a huge tactical error for the already shabby Democrats.

Thanks for your excellent comments.

Char :)

[oceanview]

no currently pro-Roe justice will be replaced with an anti-Roe one. whether it be a vote (failed) on the rules change, or enough republicans voting against that nominee, it will never happen.

[hophead]

I was saying this from the beginning. I did not like the deal at all but there was a bright side. The bar has been set now for what type of judge is "acceptable" to the dums. If anyone similar to Brown, Pryor or Rogers is filibustered the "constitutional option" will be in play. I think the damage will be nil compared to what it could have been if used earlier. I knew it was only a matter of a short time before the dums would break their part of the bargain.

[SmithL]

Watch out, posting this kind of stuff will get you on the invisible black-list.

[CHARLITE]

Well, it is said that every cloud has a silver lining!

I posted this one because it's actually the first one I've seen which argues that we Republicans didn't come out of the storm too badly, after all. It's always good intellectual exercise to view opposing points of view.

Thanks for your comment!

Char :)

[Miss Marple]

There was also a good analysis from the National Review similar to this one, posted early this morning.

I agree. I do think, however, that the weasels cannot be excused because this is going to work out ok for us. I think they inadvertently gave us the advantage, I think perhaps because that prayer "no weapon formed against him shall prosper" actually has been answered.

[deport]

There was also a good analysis from the National Review similar to this one, posted early this morning.

---

I'm going to cross link it here so others can read it... A good article imo.

How the Senate majority leader played a game of filibuster chicken
by Bryon York, NRO.

[JLS]

Like all agreements it depends on how each side performs. If as Graham has promised:

1. ALL the judicial appointment go through the regular confirmation process.

2. Bolton is not filibustered.

3. The Supreme Court nominees are not filibustered.

4. The Dims dont stall other things in the Senate like a Social Security reform that has majority support.

Then it was worth giving the Dims face saving cover. That will be all they have gotten in this deal, they did not have to suffer the in your face loss of a rules change. No since humiliating an opponent whose cooperation can be helpful.

But only time will tell if the Dims behave this way. If not, I suspect the GOP will clearly have the votes to change the rules. I would not be surprised if even RINOs like Snowe and Collins got much negative mail on this issue.

[zbigreddogz]

I don't think Graham ever promised that no LEGISLATION would get fillibustered, even the Nuke option wouldn't fix that, but I do think the other 3 are likely.

[JLS]

I agree and did not mean to imply no legislation would be filibustered. The issue to me is would the Dims filibuster any social security legislation just so the GOP could not get credit. If no social social security legislations would ever be acceptable to them, that would be breaking the spirit of the deal in my view.

[zbigreddogz]

Umm, but the new deal only applies to Judges.

Not that I want the Dims to fillibuster SS reform, not at all, I'm just not sure what the deal has to do with it.

[colorado tanker]

I don't think we'll know whether this was a good deal or not until someone other than the named three judges is called up. Will the Dims filibuster again? Will McPain call them for a breach of the deal if they do and go nuclear?

[Always Right]

I wasn't crazy about the deal either, but it was never a defeat, all the conservatives who were declaring defeat were wrong, and it's obvious that we have the upper hand in the fight

I don't care for McCain, but this deal never bothered me. I was not sure we had the votes to pass the nuclear option. Now if the Dems get out of hand, the nuclear option will easily pass. The downside it we may lose a judge or two, but I don't see a filibuster working for a Supreme Court nominee. That would definitely be nuked.

[zbigreddogz]

True. That's why I said the Dems won't dare block a SC nominee. In that case, Specter, Warner, and at least one of the Maine twins will all but certainly vote for us. (I think Specter and Warner would have anyway at the end of the day, but it's not a question anymore)

[JLS]

Umm, but the new deal only applies to Judges.
___________________________________________________

Of course it does not. That is the whole point. The deal specifically mentions five judges but the deal is for the Dims to return to the traditions of the Senate. The is not filibustering judicial appointments and also not obstructing for obstructings sake. We shall.

[timydnuc]

I'm with you. I can't stand McLame, he's a RINO and a very self absorbed man, but I also had little problem with this deal. I emailed Frist telling him not to negotiate with the RATS on this (my exact words were, DON'T YOU DARE). He didn't. As he said about the "deal" (paraphrasing) "I didn't make this deal, as far as I'm concerned the 'constitutional option' is still in play".

The RATS took a bad deal to save face and now they have pie all over that face. It's good for me! As long as this will end in a Supreme Court that interprets the Constitution and lower courts that do the same and not legislate from the bench I'm for it. Next step for the Pubbies is tort reform, most importantly "loser pays". When that happens you'll be able to tell a radical lefty ACLU type by the brown streak on the seat of his/her pants. When that happens we can say, the people won, the Republic is preserved, and all is right with liberty and justice. Until then it's still the fight of our lives.