Posted on 05/24/2005 8:10:37 AM PDT by YaYa123
I agree with John Podhoretz that politics in the real world calls for some compromise — at least when a matter of principle is not involved. But he’s dreaming if he really thinks the filibuster “compromise” struck last night in the Senate is a “victory.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Rush will be on in 20 minutes. Any guess how he'll be coming down on the deal? I believe he'll slam McCain but still claim victory for the GOP as a whole. His eternal optimism will come through on this.
Here is the agreement! What's their to like?? We had the Dems by the balls, we conservatives had the whole enchilada on the Filibuster deal and now this........
This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.
We have agreed to the following:
Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations
A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).
B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).
Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations
A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.
B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.
We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “Advice” speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.
Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.
We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.
After calming down and looking closer at the big picture, I see your point. Frist, however is the winner of this deal, not John.
Good analogy, except it's three out of seven. And the other four games haven't been played yet. Unfortunately one or two "games" (confirmations) may well be lost because of McCain and friends, but in the end I think the GOP takes the best of seven.
6. We ostensibly get a vote on three judicial nominees we would have gotten anyway. Not much of a bonus there.
7. At least two and as many as 6 conservative jurists have been tossed overboard.
I am on the edge of my seat waiting to see what the professor has to say.
On the surface maybe the deal isn't that bad. But it's not the deal itself, it's the party to the "deal." That's the problem. The Rats screwed over Bush I, by renegging on their pledge to cut spending. Did they get punished for it? They got eight years of Bill Clinton as a result. I'm sorry, I don't trust the Rats as far as I can spit. There didn't have to be a deal.
So, the agreement strikes a deal that was properly rejected as unacceptable only a few days ago. Risibly couched in the rhetoric of “compromise,” it freezes in place an outcome in which 70 percent of the ten nominees at issue have been defeated. To the extent it says anything of immediate consequence, it is unenforceable. And to the extent it says something definitive, it is wrong and it lays important groundwork for future filibustering. Some victory.
Withal, John dons rose-tinted glasses and says the deal “establishes the principle that conservative judges have every right to serve on the higher benches even if Democrats can't stand it.” In this straw-grasping lies the truth about just how badly defeated conservatives are here.
Does anyone really think it needed to be established that conservative judges “have every right to serve on the higher benches”? That is self-evident. But, in today’s arrangements, notwithstanding a president reelected with more votes than any president in history and a one-sided 55-45 margin in the Senate, that which is self-evident somehow needs to be reestablished as a “principle” whenever a determined minority objects.
Alas, reestablishing a principle already long established turns out to be hard work — the vigor for which appears sadly lacking.
After four years we get three judges. Three judges that should have been confirmed ages ago. This agreement lets the Dims get away with blocking the others. I can't see this agreement as anything but a massive give-away of a Constitutional power by the Senate Republicans.
"Frist, however is the winner of this deal, not John."
Wrong! The Republicans had their collective boots on the throats of the Dems and they cried Uncle and we let them up. They, the Republicans, are pathetic losers IMHO. They are a bunch of candy-asses!
Agreed.This is a good article.
I don't see him doing that. But I do see him going Indy. Actually though, it could be good for the GOP candidate. Most liberals that I know say that they would vote for McCain. And most of them hate Hillary.
So I am thinking it could be a reverse fortune this time around.
My first impression of the memorandum of understanding is that it is merely a delay to the restoration of the principle of balance between the president and the Senate regarding nominations, carried out in up-and-down votes on nominations.
It is smoke and mirrors to cover for the DEMs voting to approve the cloture motion. It is a face-saving and delay device. It has a silver lining in that it exposes a number of Senator's disdain for the Constitution.
The damage to the GOP is self-inflicted, because it cast itself as holding the nuclear trigger, and is now perceived as weak.
The nominations of Saad, if reported out of committee, will again raise the issue of DEM agreement to vote. The nominations of Myers and Bolton are now on the Senate's Executive Calendar. If the DEMs withhold unanimous consent to vote, and 16 Senators do NOT file a cloture motion on them, then the GOP will have caved totally to the edict of the 14.
Status quo. Nothing lost, as I said.
2. 7 Republicans have committed not to change the rules of the senate in the 109th Congress.
Unless the Dems lie and filibuster. Then we're back to nothing changed. And if not, then three judges make it through.
3. Number 1 and number 2 combined assure no Bush nominee for SCOTUS will be confirmed in this Congress.
That's pure speculation, and not even realistic.
4. Democrat "moderates" in red states have been granted political cover by King John in the 2006 elections. They should have been forced to vote on cloture.
For now, yes. I agree I would have preferred holding their feet to the fire via voting.
5. Speaking of cloture, there is nothing in the agreement that binds the 7 democrats to vote for cloture.
Nope. Nor was there before.
6. McCain and his dwarves have the temerity to tell the POTUS that he has to check with them before he sends judicial appointments to the senate in direct contravention of the constitution and the Federalis Papers discussion of "Advice and Consent". See Hamilton.
That may or may not be the implication, but it's been the implication since the Dems started this mess. Nothing has changed.
Need more?
Yes, please. The only point above that I accept is the red-state Dems being given a pass - at least for now.
Yep. Not a victory, but a complete RINO sell out.
And it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. The GOP has 55 [cough, cough], so the 7 pledged votes would end a supposed Dem filibuster. This is the "based on trust and respect" manure they were shovelling last night.
Where are the miracles?
Why is there still a ME?
Why do I still pay taxes?
How come I don't have a million dollars..
:)
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.