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.
Goober Lindsey Graham and that twit DeWeenie were the biggest disappointments to go this route with backstabber Mc Ain't. The others are certified RINO's.
Nope, won't work.
1) The Senate Republicans are spineless, If they threaten to filibuster Ted Kennedy might not invite them on his yacht, so they will likely cave and it's doubtful they will ever go through with it.
2) When it comes to politics, give the devils their due, unlike the Republicans the Democrats are not spineless and they will use the nuclear option day number 1
Gang of 14 was WRONG when they were formed, and they are WRONG NOW.
I just simply don't like people making an argument for or against an issue based on outcomes. Whatever happened to principles?
Shame on conservatives who argue that the Gang of 14 is anything but wrong!!
Does anyone here seriously believe that the Republicans will ever be able to mount a successful filibuster against a future Democratic SCOTUS nominee?
Even assuming that there is a Republican senator willing to invoke the filibuster-a proposition that I'm extremely that I'm skeptical of-does anyone doubt that there is no way-even under the most outlandish scenario, e.g. a future Dem. president nominating someone like Alan Dershowitz to the SC-that the Republican caucus in the U.S. Senate would be able to gather 41 strong votes against cloture?
Three senators voted against Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Eight against Stephen Breyer.
What fantasy world are these people living in?
Lott's sole interest was embarrassing the Senator who had replaced him as Majority Leader, Bill Frist...
It's crap like this that makes me glad that Lott is no longer Majority Leader (even if it was a completely b.s. situation that forced him to step down - we all knew he was just making a kind-hearted gesture towards an old colleague; nothing more).
Man is nothing more than a screw-up waiting to happen. Hell, he was the idiot who came up with the phrase "nuclear option", giving the liberal scumbag media yet another opportunity to bash Republicans/conservatives. He's either a bleeping moron for not knowing the reaction that phrase would cause, or a complete a--hole for embarrassing the party.
If Lott were still Majority Leader, would we even be contemplating anti-fillibuster moves? Of course not. Lott would figure out some way to completely water down the type of judges we got just for the purpose of compromising.
"We" will not filibuster any judge or justice nomination indefinitely. No matter who it is. Period. We just don't do that sort of thing. It's the Democrats and their precarious electoral position that has lead them to abusing the filibuster in this way.
Lott, you will recall, was the brilliant mind behind the "power sharing" agreement with Daschle -- even though he had a 50/50+VP working majority.
The original "go along to get along guy" -- thinks like a fraternity president, not a majority leader.
Wouldn't be necessary.
If the 'Rats ever have a Senate majority again, they'd launch the "nuclear option" without thinking twice. Senator Robert Byrd (D-KKK) changed the rules once, he'll change them again.
All this concern about maintaining the filibuster for when the Republicans don't have the Presidency or a majority is just silly -- mental masturbation by midget minds.
Rulings from the chair are durable past the Congress they are issued in.
Riddick's Senate Procedure has many examples.
No he didn't. Not yet anyway. Half of the then-pending Circuit Court nominees were NOT voted on, and remain pending even now.
I also believe that the President ponders SCOTUS nominations under the assumption that it takes 60 votes to obtain confirmation - or to avoid confrontation. The fact that the abuse of cloture is being discussed in the context of the Alito nomination reinforces this point.
Never mind filibuster. Hypothetically, assume that a DEM president nominates Hillary! (or Bill) to SCOTUS. Assume further that the GOP has a majority in the Senate, and that it is well believed that the nominee will produce outcome-driven rulings, legislate from the bench, etc.
In short, that in the mind of the Senator, the nominee is offensive to the Constitutional principles of separation of powers. Based on past performance, even given a belief on the part of a Senator that the nominee will be an activist judge (see Ginsberg), the Senator will vote to confirm.
A good fraction of Congress prefers that tough social decisions (same-sex marriage, abortion on demand, adoption into unisex families, right to suicide, euthanasia, etc.) be "settled" by the Courts. And in that environment, there will always be 60 Senators who will confirm, even if 70 members of the Senate are Republicans.
Roberts was and Alito will be confirmed because the Rats have no choice and no reason not to confirm them. There simply aren't any issues big enough to grab onto. If it was someone like Janice Rogers Brown, they could put up a decent fight, and would, Gaggle of 14 or not.
The hot reception in certain quarters for the attempted takeover of Congress by the 14 may well have muted the effect. Without the blogs there would have been only approving notices from MSM and the rest of the Republicans would have just withdrawn into the ever nearby Republican Cocoon while the 14 actually ontrolled legislation for the benefit of the Democrats.
bttt
Because we've filibustered nominees in past? Because Democrats would never consider nuking the filibuster themselves, and follow through?
1) Republicans will never filibuster.
2) Democrats would never allow a filibuster to stand.
That thinking is no different then those that say, yeah, I trust THIS President with the Patriot Act but I wouldn't trust a Clinton. Well, fine, but the Clinton's won't need the Patriot Act. They'll go further then the Patriot Act and face no consequence. It's a false premise.
Bottomline- 14 Senators have staged a coup that makes their votes more important than those of the other 86. One vote, one Senator, that is what it is supposed to be. Not an unelected fourteen cabal making the other 86 mostly irrelevant.
As a result of that cabal the president felt pressured to select Miers, rather then someone like Alito initially. That set the stage for an inter-party battle we could have avoided otherwise. It has also allowed other judges to remain filibustered that were not as distinctive as pryor, brown and Owens. SADD had his reputation trashed by Reid on the floor, Reid never faced censure for it, and Sadd is still he;d up. Kavanaugh is being blocked, so are others. It has allowed this nonsense of will they/won't they filibuster to tie up current hearings. It keeps a possible third opening in doubt, that could be even uglier then these hearings that reduced Alito's wife to tears.
It was a horrendous deal that was the result of certain Senators realizing we, the American people, were fed up with obstruction but out of pique with our pressure not wanting to give us complete victory. So they settled in to construct a minority holding more power then the rest, the high profile names go through, the rest in limbo. This is why DeWine's son came in fouth in his election bid, why DeWine's seat is in jeopardy, why Chafee has a primary challenger, and Lindsey has a potential challenger that has shown interest in '08.
Spelling Corection: Saad
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.