.
Posted on 01/15/2006 8:46:59 PM PST by zarf
With Samuel Alito on his way to the Supreme Court where he will join John Roberts, and with Judges Pryor, Brown, and Owen are ensconced on one court of appeals or another, TigerHawk argues that conservative blogs like Power Line were too harsh on the deal brokered by the gang of 14. TigerHawk is right. The deal has turned out better than I expected.
That doesn't mean it was a good deal. In its absence, all of the above-mentioned nominees would have been confirmed along with several other excellent ones whom the Democrats continue to block (like Brett Kawanaugh and Jim Haynes). Moreover, if Justice Stevens is replaced during the next Congress, and the Republican majority is reduced in November, we may regret that the filibuster option is still on the table. Finally, the failure to remove that option may have contributed to the nomination of Harriet Miers, which many conservatives consider a train wreck narrowly averted.
Ultimately, though, a case can be made for preserving the right to filibuster judicial nominees provided that the right is exercised responsibly. And even if one doesn't accept that case, it's difficult to get too agitated about the preservation of the filibuster option absent a pattern of abuse or evidence that the president now is backing away from strong conservative nominees. So far, we haven't seen either phenomenon to an appreciable degree.
JOHN adds: Whether a deal is good or bad depends on what you assume the alternative is. Given that the Republicans control 55 Senate seats, there is, in principle, no reason why a Republican President should not be able to get all reasonably qualified nominees confirmed. And all of President Bush's nominees, to my knowledge, have been more than reasonably qualified.
The Democrats could have filibustered one or more nominees, of course, but it's clear they didn't want to do that. There is no precedent for it, the public had no appetite for it, and the Republicans had the numbers--on paper--to override the filibuster by revising the rules.
So it's still hard for me to see the "Gang of 14" compromise as a good deal. If seven Republicans struck a compromise because the party's position was threatened by possible defections from some other quarter, that would be one thing. But here, who were the possible defectors? None other than the Gang members themselves.
So I'm not cheering on the Gang, even in hindsight. With reasonable party discipline, all of the judges who have now been confirmed would have been confirmed, plus several more. Having said that, I'm delighted to admit that things have turned out better than I feared. The compromise wasn't as good as a principled stand against the judicial filibuster, but, thankfully, it hasn't done as much damage as I thought it would.
Pardon my ignorance on this matter. What exactly is the "Gang of 14?"
"....and the Republican majority is reduced in November...."
Reduced by whom? Reduced by the Republican members of Congress, and their stupid dithering and venal conduct. Actions have consequences.
The Democrats may be even worse, but if the voters get mad, they may not remember this until it is too late.
If there weren't so many RINOs, there would be no gang of 14.
In my way of thinking the only thing the gang of 14 does is expose the RINOs for who they are, among whom the worst is my senator, MCLAME!
It's from that deal McCain brokered, in which 7 GOP and 7 Dems agreed that there could only be a filibuster of judicial nominees in extreme circumstances. Basically it hamstrung Frist's threat to invoke the nuclear option, and gave effective control of the confirmation process to 14 "moderates."
The 7 Republicans and the 7 Democrats who brokered the deal to consider the nominees in return for not eliminating the right to filibuster.
It is good that the law did not get revised. We may have a need to filibuster judicial nominees in the future.
I'm glad to see tigerhawk mentioned, he blog is excellent.
http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/
McCain took credit for brokering the deal, but Trent Lott was the "moving force". The idea originated with him and all the negotiations and the signing ceremony itself took place in his office -- even though Lott was not one of the signatories.
Lott's sole interest was embarrassing the Senator who had replaced him as Majority Leader, Bill Frist...
Thanks for the info on the throne room intrigue...news to me.
IIRC: The Constitutional Option is only valid in the Congress in which it is invoked.
Senator Graham now actually says (it sounds like he thinks he is the leader of the group or something to its effect) that he has the right to veto democratic judicial filibusters.
Think about that.
A republican senator (granted, a RINO) decides if and when the democrats can or can't use the filibuster.
Some Republicans may take comfort from the fact that they still have the option of changing the Senate rules in the future if the Democrats violate the spirit of their deal. But, once you have had the votes to win and wimped out instead, there is little reason to think that the weak sisters and opportunists on your side will be with you the next time high noon rolls around.
While members of both parties are trying to put a good face on this political deal and the media have gushed about this "bipartisan" agreement, Republican Senator Charles Grassley was one of the few who called a spade a spade, when he characterized what happened as "unilateral disarmament" by the Republicans.
If it was just the Republican Party that lost in this confrontation, that would be a minor partisan matter. What is of major importance is that the American people lost a golden opportunity that may not come again in this generation."
"Some incorrigibly naive conservatives say Democrats won't be able to get away with blocking "conservative" judges in the future, having agreed not to block Brown, Pryor and Owen, who everyone agrees are originalists and "conservatives." But Democrats can simply say that by agreeing not to block a vote on these three, they weren't conceding the nominees weren't "extraordinary," but that they were an acceptable, short-term compromise in exchange for the right to block similarly conservative nominees in the future...Republicans have also bestowed upon Democrats a public relations victory by implying that it was the Republicans, not Democrats, who were breaking with historical precedent and violating the spirit of the Constitution. In short, Republicans had the moral and historical high ground and voluntarily surrendered it to a militant Democrat minority by tacitly agreeing to a false version of the facts and history."
"Never has a majority party proved to be so spineless. Republicans, lest we forget, constitute 55 out of 100 senators and have the power to do what they please. Instead, they capitulated. It is now crystal clear that unless Republicans own almost 60 seats, rules will not be changed; unless Republicans own almost 70, cloture will never be invoked on a major issue. If that doesn't discourage the Republican base, nothing will."
"One may argue that a compromise is durable to the extent its signers make genuine sacrifices. In this compromise, conservatives and moderates have sacrificed resorting to the constitutional option that would confirm judicial nominees by a simple majority. The left has sacrificed three nominees it would have lost anyway, while thwarting two and retaining the right to apply a Senate rule of a required supermajority (60 percent to break a filibuster) not only to all other district and appellate nominees, but to nominees to the big enchilada - the Supreme Court."
"It is not a great deal for two nominees who have been accorded a nice wake having been thrown overboard at sea. (And) everyone should also clearly see that ultimately, nothing has been settled when a vacancy arises on the U.S. Supreme Court."
.
That is a gross misrepresentation bordering on a lie.
The 7 republicans wanted all judges to get a fair hearing and a vote but did not want the Senate rules revised to eliminate a democrat filibuster.
And the end result was Bush got all qualified conservatives voted on and confirmed and the democrats got nothing.
Hmmmm, let's reexamine that bold claim, shall we? Second, let's not count chickens until they're hatched, as someone noted the grand GOP tradition of nominating Warrens, Burgers, and Souters. And finally, let's not forget that there is still no end to the filibuster of judicial nominees nor an end to the "hold" process.
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.