Posted on 05/24/2005 9:00:37 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
Yesterday the Senate reached a Compromise on confirmation hearings on certain judicial nominees. But “compromise” normally means an agreement between opposing parties where both make concessions and commit to keeping the bargain. By that standard, this is no compromise. It is, as Shakespeare wrote in Macbeth, “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Allow me to prove the point.
The 14 signing Senators committed to vote to close debate on the nominations of Priscilla Owen, Janice Brown, and William Pryor for various Circuit Courts. They made no commitment on nominees William Myers and Henry Saad. Regarding other nominees for federal courts these Senators said, “Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances...”
In return for this promise, these Senators pledged “to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress” (in Rule XXII, the cloture rule).
Extraordinary circumstances will be defined by each Senator. Consider that Ted Kennedy and other rabid Democrats believe it is “extraordinary” any time a Republican (temporarily occupying the White House) makes any nomination.
If, not when, the Democrats filibuster an “ordinary” nominee, all bets are off. We are looking at two schoolchildren in a playground who’ve just reached a deal. Both have one hand behind their backs, fingers crossed.
Lastly, the Compromise demands certain actions of the President, who didn't sign the deal. It reaches the length of Pennsylvania and insists the President “consult” with the Senate before making any future nominations. No President from George Washington to Bill Clinton has routinely done this.
The MSM is hailing this Compromise as a “victory for the centrists in the Senate.” The press has the right number of syllables, but the wrong word. This is a victory for the cowards in the Senate. These Senators signed: Republicans John McCain, John Warner, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Mike DeWine, Lindsey Graham and John Chafee; plus Democrats Robert Byrd, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Daniel Inouye, Ken Salazar, Mark Pryor and Joe Lieberman.
The Democrats are afraid to stick up for “the traditions of the Senate,” as Harry Reid has dishonestly portrayed it. The most fearful is Ben Nelson. He’s from Florida, which went strongly Republican in 2004. He’s running for reelection in 2006.
But the Republicans are also cowards. Collins, Snow and Chafee are doing their imitation of stray grapes in fresh fruit aisle at the Piggly Wiggly. They are squishy. The saddest entry is Lindsey Graham. He was a man of principle in the House, and when elected to the Senate. But like Joe Lieberman, when push came to shove, he found the political path too steep to climb if burdened with principles.
While we’re on that subject, consider Robert Byrd on his ancient feet, incessantly repeating himself like the elderly brothers in Barry Levinson’s Avalon. Byrd claims to defend “the institution of the Senate.” Why didn't any Senator rise and ask this question: “Is the Senator so senile that he has forgotten when he was Majority Leader and used a majority vote four times to change the procedures of the Senate?” Of course, in the decorous world of the Senate, it would have been phrased more politely
Because of the holes in its logic and terms, this Compromise is no agreement at all. It will fall apart shortly after the three judicial nominees have been confirmed. When Chief Justice Rehnquist resigns in a month and President Bush nominates Antonin Scalia to replace him, all Hell will break loose.
The orgy of mutual self-congratulation on the Senate floor Monday night was like the similar orgy six years ago when Congress declared the federal budget was balanced. The appearance of balance was manufactured by snapping up every penny of the Social Security surplus. The mutual agreement of Republicans and Democrats that they have jointly achieved some magnificent goal was worthless in the face of facts to the contrary.
Far from affirming the Senate as an institution, this Compromise has covered it in shame. The Senate has truly “stepped back from the precipice” – of making a decision. Instead it has substituted a fog of words for a difficult but important decision. The Gunfight at Not-OK Corral is still coming to a theater near you. Just you wait.
The Senate has solved nothing. And the Constitution (remember that, it was in all the papers) has been trashed again.
The Senate has only kicked the can down the road, to confront the same problem under worse circumstances in a month. If that doesn't meet Shakespeare’s definition of idiocy, what does?
About the Author: John Armor is a First Amendment attorney and author who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
No, I didn't like McGovern better, but that doesn't change the fact that Nixon had some liberal policies. I prefer Bush to Kerry, but that doesn't mean I'm slavish in my praise of all things Bush. Try thinking past the party line. You may learn something. It isn't an all or nothing situation.
Chafee and his family live in Virginia.
As far as I know, he's rarely to never been here since he was elected. I watch for news of his coming because I'd like to FReep him, the traitor.
He is commonly referred to as the Senator from Virginia here in Rhode Island by those of us who despise him.
A commmon joke is if we have to have a senator from Virginia can't we at least have a real Virginian.
Owen was not voted down and only Chaffee actually voted against her. Will you admit you were WRONG after each of the three is confirmed, or do you just want to do it now and get it over with?
"WTF? We just had seven defect. And don't forget that blubbering nitwit, Voinovich. That's eight. If Scottish Law can somehow be made to apply, throw in Spector. That's nine. Don't forget everybody's favorite Joe Biden impersonator, Chuck Hagel. That's ten.
Hello, McFly? I could easily see six of those ten stabbing us in the back again. I've already seen seven.
Heck, the gentleman douchebag from Rhode Island D.C. was so eager to prove what a maverick he was, he went ahead and voted against the first nominee that got a vote under this cockamamie deal."
Unless I no longer understand written English, your post states that you could "easily see six of those ten stabbing us in the back." Am I to take that as meaning you disagree with my prediction that Pryor, Owen, and Brown would all be confirmed, or just that you wouldn't be surprised if it happened? If indeed all three are confirmed, you would be "WRONG" about seeing "six of those ten stabbing us in the back", whether you meant it as a prediction or not.
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.