Posted on 05/24/2005 2:00:48 PM PDT by FROGTOWN CONSERVATIVE
The left is crowing and the right is carping, for the most part, about last night's deal by 14 senators, seven from each party, to avoid the "nuclear option"--a Senate vote to abolish filibusters of judicial nominees. We beg to differ. We favor an end to the obstruction of judicial nominees via filibuster, and it strikes us that this agreement is likely to accomplish that, at least for this Congress (after which the agreement expires). If so, the nuclear option will have shown its value as a deterrent.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
All this may be academic, though. The most crucial passage in the agreement may prove to be this one: "Each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such ['extraordinary'] circumstances exist." As a practical matter, this applies only to the Democratic signatories, since no Republican has ever voted to filibuster a Bush judicial nominee. "
====
He is making excellent points. The bottom line is that this agreement binds the Republicans, but does not bind the Democrats, because the loop hole for them is so big, you can drive an entire fleet of trucks through it.
I think that the atmosphere of the Senate would be much improved by the occasional breaking out of fisticuffs, as is the legislative norm in most parts of the world.
They should bring back dueling to settle differences among Senators. They seem to like obsolete, ancient traditions.
Ed Whelan (Bench Memos) argues that “…the provision that ‘each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist’ is double-edged: A Republican signatory is fully entitled to determine that ‘extraordinary circumstances’ do not exist and that a Democrat signatory’s contrary determination violates the agreement. Nothing in the agreement says that a signatory must defer to another signatory’s determination.” (Pers. comm.) Or, in other words, the clause “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” means that if Democrat signatories filibuster when Lindsey Graham and Mike DeWine (et al.) think the circumstances are not extraordinary, then they have their “out” clause. They can can rightly say that the nominees should not have been filibustered because the circumstances were not extraordinary. Thus, the GOPers would be released from their commitment to vote against the nuclear option. That reading is more plausible to me than the alternative reading that Graham and DeWine were majorly duped. Now it is up to them to hold the Democrats’ feet to the fire. Are they up to it? Graham surely is, and DeWine is mouthing the right words. That makes 48 GOP non-signers + 2 who will hold Dems to the agreement = 50. In theory, it looks good.
Every other Rat in the world will have to come crawling to them to get their vote for a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee.
And every conservative group will have to "consider" their "feelings," too.
from the article:
All this may be academic, though. The most crucial passage in the agreement may prove to be this one: "Each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such ['extraordinary'] circumstances exist." As a practical matter, this applies only to the Democratic signatories, since no Republican has ever voted to filibuster a Bush judicial nominee.
The seven signatories, that is, have now declared that they will decide how to vote on judicial filibusters rather than take directions from the party. Two of them, Robert Byrd and Daniel Inoyue, probably did so largely to preserve "Senate tradition"; but the other five--Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor and Ken Salazar--are all generally moderate, and all from red states except Lieberman. Their inclinations and political interests diverge from those of Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy and other far-left blue-staters.
If left-wing Democrats want to filibuster another nominee, they will have to persuade Minority Leader Harry Reid to risk another nuclear confrontation and persuade at least one of the moderate compromising five, plus Byrd, Inoyue and every single uncompromising Dem, that it's worth it. It could happen, but we're not betting on it.
They can can rightly say that the nominees should not have been filibustered because the circumstances were not extraordinary. Thus, the GOPers would be released from their commitment to vote against the nuclear option.
That reading is more plausible to me than the alternative reading that Graham and DeWine were majorly duped. Now it is up to them to hold the Democrats’ feet to the fire. Are they up to it? Graham surely is, and DeWine is mouthing the right words. That makes 48 GOP non-signers + 2 who will hold Dems to the agreement = 50. In theory, it looks good.
I don't know about you, but I'm not taking kindly to the fate of the judiciary resting on the cojones of Senator Graham.
what i want to know is what (if any) side deal has been cut. That will tell me all I need to know about this crowd
Republicans who think that because the RATS are allowing votes on Owen, Brown and Pryor they won't be able to filibuster any other nominee who's as conservative or less so are deluding themselves. The RATS will just say that Owen et al actually are basically unacceptable to them, that they let them through reluctantly just to preserve the right to filibuster. Mark my words.
At least not in the Senate.
Besides, can anybody imagine drunk Teddy with a pistol in a duel?!!
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.