The Gunfight at Not-OK Corral

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 27 May 2005 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[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

[Once-Ler]

I still bet that all three will be confirmed and I'll stand by it.

They certainly deserve to be confirmed and it will be a great day when they are.

[Once-Ler]

Answer: Republican presidents. Nixon (Blackmun and Stevens), Reagan (O'Connor), Bush 41 (Souter). If that's the only reason you are staying in the Republican party, it's a false reason to do so.

If you didn't like Nixon Reagan and Bush presumably you liked McGovern, Carter, and Dukakis better. Or did you support a fringe candidate who had no chance of ever winning thereby making it easy for you to condemn the rest of the world?

Leftists do not belong in the Republican party.

Leftist like Nixon, Reagan, and Bush?

[Badray]

bump for later

[layman]

Would it be correct to refer to him as "My esteemed colleague, the gentleass from Arizona?"

They don't use that term anymore because of a misunderstanding several years back ... somebody called Barney Frank a gentleass and Barney thought he was being hit on.

[metesky]

Kabuki theater.

[steveegg]

That's what I've been saying too. At least there are two of us here, who see that. :-)

Make that 3, and probably a lot more. The sure sign that the fix is in was that a majority of the DemonRATs, including both the "leader" of the RATs (Reid) and the 900-pound black pantsuit (Clinton) voted to invoke cloture on Owen.

Pryor is a given for being a sacrificial lamb. However, he likely won't be the only one of the "Big 3"; the lieberals are privately even more outraged about Brown.

[steveegg]

Kabuki theater.

You read my mind :-)

[Gritty]

Great article, Congressman!

The press has the right number of syllables, but the wrong word. This is a victory for the cowards in the Senate.

Hopefully, the same sort of "victory" Pearl Harbor was for the Japanese!

Senators who sell out our Constitution for an enthusiastic sound bite from the admiring media and a handshake from Robert Byrd aren't worth a warm puddle of spit. Two big losers in this will be Graham and DeWhine. Those are two politically stupid men with tin ears. McCain is finished as a Presidential candidate for the GOP, but not as the darling of the media.

[cvq3842]

They may be just dumb - or somehow they were sweet-talked, and need to learn the hard way how the Dems stab in the back.

The whole course of the courts is truly alarming. (I was thinking of starting a vanity thread, but I'd rather stay on-topic here.) On issues like abortion on demand and "gay marriage," it seems like the strategy is to find ANY possible way to justify a desired result and then hope the public "catches up" eventually. Take the case about ten days ago striking down a state constitutional amendment banning "gay marriage." The judge essentially said the constitutional amendment denies "due process" or "equal protection" (I don't remember all the details; it's so convoluted anyway) because the amendment makes it harder for some groups to change the law. DUH! That's what a constitutional amendment is for! Using that logic, state constitutional amendments creating a state income tax would be unconstitutional because they make it harder for some groups (taxpayers) to make legislative changes.

But the law would never be applied that way. And homosexuals have never been declared a class requiring special protection under federal law, like races or religions.

So what we have is judges just coming up with any intellectual BS to get the results they want. So the courts' reasoning is just window-dressing. Why bother trying to even come up with a coherent argument?

I think the idea, again, is to do or say ANYTHING and in the meantime "educate" (indoctrinate) the young so that in time everyone will agree and the logic won't matter.

But I think on unrestricted abortion, and certainly gay marriage, this tactic seems to have had the opposite effect. It mobilizes opponents, exacerbates the controversy because the PEOPLE have not resolved this through the legislative process, and erodes respect for the courts. Court grabs at legislative power don't throw water on the fire; they throw gasoline instead. I hate the idea of "enshrining" the idea of judicial activism in the law by implicitly recognizing it. but the time may have come. Mark Levin is probably right. Term limits for federal judges, and a mechanism to "override" a Supreme Court decision by the Congress, are imperfect solutions, but solutions nonetheless, to the problem. if they want to act like legislators, then treat them that way. People worry about the "tyranny of the majority." But I'd rather trust both houses of Congress sent there by the American people than 5 of 9 supreme court justices ultimately picked, it now seems, by a backroom deal among 14 senators.

[cvq3842]

Once in a while I have a flash of understanding, so I am going to vanity bump. Someone must have said these things already, but they bear repeating. :)

[zebrahead]

I don't see any of those three being voted down in an up-or-down vote. There are 55 Republican senators, meaning as many as five could defect and they'd still be confirmed with Cheney's tie-breaking vote.

[Badray]

Arlen Specter actions prove his support of the Constitutional Option.

What actions? What proof?

He talked out of both sides of his mouth and both sides of the aisle think that he is on their side.

[El Gato]

McCain is from Venus.

More like Uranus. Or the Peoples Republic of Haven. He's definitely the Peep type.

[El Gato]

At least four of them think the current leftist drift of the Supreme Court is just dandy.

A drift. I'd call it a roaring rapid.

[WOSG]

THANK YOU for naming the nominees left in the lurch.

We need to HIGHLIGHT THIS FACT.

The wound has *not* been healed until *all* nominees get an up or down vote.

[Les_Miserables]

BB

I believe the most important parts of the "compromise" are the unwritten agreements that were made behind the scenes to hold the coalition together. I am concerned that Graham and Dewine will frustrate the Judicial committee nominations of controversial (read extraordinary circumstance) candidates and "advise" POTUS that they will not reach the floor for a vote. (Specter has promised to work for sending all nominees to the floor but he can't be held responsible for Graham and Dewine.) Therefor it becomes a no brainer to avoid a filibuster since no "bad" candidate will get reported out for a vote. Completing the circle this means Frist will never be able to exercise the Constitutional Option since there will be no failing cloture votes against which to apply it. This kills the filibuster tactic but only by making it unnecessary and also attempts to force POTUS to "consult" with the "14" for approval before sending over any candidate. We will see if this holds if Bush sends a high profile conservative over to replace Scalia once he moves up to Chief Justice since it will be difficult for Graham et al to put a hold on a high profile SCOTUS appointment. They will have to vote that person down. Maybe this is too Machiavellian but I trust them not. They are lawyers after all.

[nopardons]

There are 7 RINOs, one of whom voted against Owen. She was the most "moderate" of the three.

[nopardons]

At least 3 of can see the forest for the trees, then. :-)