Folks, this was a great deal for us. We won.

[Guaranteed]

All they got was two judges. Five judges, two of which aren't even being voted on. Some senators are saying that one of the remaining three won't even be confirmed. Imagine the grey matter spraying on the Freepers' walls when THAT happens.

Further, we retain the right to filibuster any other nominees, and the Repukes have committed, in WRITING, to not using the "nuclear option" until at least the next session. Even then, since they couldn't work it out this time around, I can't imagine them trying to use it again.

So, basically the way it worked out is that the nuke option is DEAD, and they only got two fascist judges out of it. Everything else is the same.

Pop the corks. :)

[NMDemDist2]

1. agreed n/t

[deadparrot]

2. Thank you

for some much-needed perspective.

[derby378]

3. EXCUSE ME?!?

If Priscilla Owen was one of those judges, we are so fucked. That means the Senate Democrats have caved on us again.

[Guaranteed]

8. Two more bad judges in the whole federal court system.

Two drops in a bucket.

[FreedomAngel82]

12. I bet you I can figure this out with two words

Joe Liberman.

[JHB]

97. Don't Panic...

If Priscilla Owen was one of those judges, we are so fucked.

If Priscilla Owen is one of those judges, what are the odds she'll not only keep to her old habits, but Washington-supersize them?

Watch, wait, and keep a copy of "how to impeach a Federal judge" handy. She'll walk into the sights soo enough.

[derby378]

102. Does this mean David Barton might be of some use to us?

He's one of the earliest advocates for judicial impeachment. All right, I'm waiting - if we can impeach Owen, that might be fun.

[dogday]

104. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over cases from

Houston. Now what cases might there be? Let's see, Ken Lay and Enron, Tom DeLay? Haliburton cases? Is anyone out there getting any of this? This judge had to be placed in this court.

[merwin]

4. Actually, they got 3. But who's counting :-)

[Guaranteed]

6. I did, if you read the whole OP. nt

[merwin]

10. I'm pretty sure that they'll end up with 3 in. However, I'd be very happy

if we do get one more thrown out.

[Guaranteed]

13. It could very well happen.

We'll see.

Look around and see what the Senators are saying about it.

[tridim]

5. Gawd told Dobson and Frist to go fuck themselves

That's a victory in my book.

ANY result that pisses off Dobson is a victory.

[Coexist]

7. Yes. we. did. Oy - some people

[FreedomAngel82]

9. Disagree

They can do anything else they want now and the only times the democrats can filibuster is when they think it's "extreme" and then a republican senator can stand up and disagree and it's over with. We lost big time. Corporations won.

[Guaranteed]

15. No, because they can't use the nuke option now. nt

[TX-RAT]

99. No, but the first time they don't get their way.

Their going to immediately go nuke.

[Rowdyboy]

11. Dobson's pissed, Frist is de-nutted, the Filibuster remains. When you win

you should celebrate-not piss and moan.

[FreedomAngel82]

14. Celebrate? Celebrate what?!

Do you not know what we lost? We did NOT win anything. If they did go "nuclear" we could've brought straight to the top tons of bills and forced the republicans an "up or down" vote and shown the whole country how these assholes are and their true colors. Think of what they could've put through!

[okieinpain]

70. sorry, but we lost the 04 election. you're looking at a big win for

the dems. the repugs could not get their majority to go along for the freeper joy ride. they could have had 55 repugs follow the leader and tell dems to shove it. instead harry reid was able to get them to blink.

We all should be very happy.

[LynnTheDem]

82. Oy. Try thinking Big Picture.

Geez.

[Teaser]

16. Not this crowd.

No, not this crowd.

[derby378]

18. Win the battle, lose the war

If Owen is confirmed by the Senate, the filibuster is meaningless. And the 5th Circuit will be cursed with one of the worst judges in the United States.

Folks, the fix is in. We have been mightily double-crossed. And I suspect Dobson's just "playing possum" at this point to look good for the theofascists who support him.

[Guaranteed]

21. No, we haven't been double-crossed.

We were backed up against the wall as the minority, we threatened them with our own nuclear option, and they managed to push through two judges. They can't make the threat again, and we get to filibuster all we want.

That's awesome. You should be jumping for joy.

[derby378]

44. Not entirely true

From the AP:

Democrats, pointing to a slight change in wording from an earlier draft, said the deal would preclude Republicans from attempting to deny them the right to filibuster. Republicans said that was not ironclad, but valid only as long as Democrats did not go back on their word to filibuster only in extraordinary circumstances.

This means the GOP still has the nuclear option, and will use it if they decide Dems don't hold up their end of the deal. All they have to do is cook up some cock-and-bull story, and we're right back where we started from.

[Guaranteed]

48. No, that's not what the memo says.

If they're saying otherwise, they didn't read what they signed.

We get to filibuster at our OWN discretion, and they have thrown out their nuke option.

Read the memo.

They go back on their word, they're chiselers and we're back to shutting down the Senate.

[gristy]

24. It seems that the opinion as to whether this is a win or not depends on

one's opinion of Owen. I admit I am more ignorant than many on this, but isn't a "horrendous" judge ultimately neutered (at least her most egregious rulings) by the Supremes?

[mzmolly]

84. And actually all we allowed was a VOTE on Owen.

:shrug:

We allowed the Senate to "VOTE."

[FreedomAngel82]

34. They would've been in anyways!

We have been double-crossed. All these people would've been voted in anyways. This was all smoke and mirrors.

[LynnTheDem]

83. "playing possum"!

:eyes:

[Fridays Child]

22. Assuming he ever had a pair.

nt

[Jim Lane]

17. We won nothing

In the past, almost all of Bush's nominees have been approved. The Dems have already been following a policy of filibustering (or threatening it) only under "extraordinary circumstances". So, what happens is that three judges get a free ride. The Republican agreement not to go nuclear is empty because, in case of a filibuster on any future nominee, the Republicans are allowed to decide that the circumstances aren't extraordinary and that, therefore, the Democrats aren't honoring the agreement, which frees the Republicans to go nuclear again.

Gonzales is Bush's longtime aide, appointee to the Texas Supreme Court, then White House Counsel, now Attorney General. Gonzales criticized Owen for her "judicial activism" (Gonzales's words) in support of right-wing causes. That's pretty extraordinary in my book -- yet Owen now goes through. By implication, any future nomination has to present an even stronger case for opposition or it's not "extraordinary".

Fine, so Roy Moore and Ann Coulter can't become federal judges. Anyone else goes through.

[Guaranteed]

20. No, you didn't read the memo.

Go read it.

[TX-RAT]

100. The memo means nothing

Sounds more like we can still filibuster, they can still go nuke.

[donheld]

32. Stop looking the gift horse in the mouth

It's not nice :shrug: some are never happy.

[Guaranteed]

33. Not sure I'd call it a gift, either, but we beat them. nt

[FreedomAngel82]

36. This was all

bullshit and we were had.

[gristy]

19. I agree BGL

:party: But then again, I've consumed 3/4 L of Merlot tonight, so what do I know?

[cry baby]

23. Agree...

They sent a message to * that he should consult before he send up a nominee. That was a message from both dems and repubs. L. Graham said that, too. Freeps are mad, Dobson feels betrayed, Frist looks like he wouldn't compromise like a politician should, things went our way, mostly, today. It's better for the country and for the senate for the nuclear option to go away.

[FrenchieCat]

25. I'm not so sure we "won" anything....

and I think it's a sad day in America....when confirming judges that were denied previously, having to promise not to use the fillibuster except for under "extraordinary" circumstances (who decides?), and the Nuke option (an option created by the Pubs) is still on the table.....all becomes a victory.

I must be trapped in a parallel universe.

Did we win Vietnam too?

[Guaranteed]

27. We won the battle. Clearly.

If you're looking to actually win someTHING, that's not going to happen until we get the House and Senate back, at least.

[PartyPooper]

26. For what it's worth, I actually saw Lindsay Graham say he's got a lot of

"splainin" to do with the folks back home. He implied that his constituents in SC were "very pissed" at him, to say the least.

I don't know about you, but I love it when the far right is "pissed".

:D

:hi:

[housewolf]

28. The American People are the real winners today...

No matter what side you're on, the bitter partisnship and emnity that would have come from a nuclear vote would have only further divided and embittered the country.

A fair compromise where both sides moved off their positions and agreed to a compromise is the best outcome for the American people, especially with such a divided population.

[SW FL Dem]

42. One of the best posts I've seen today on the subject!

Even better is the realization that the three judges, if confirmed, will be tainted. They got their promotion as the result of a political compromise.

[drdon326]

80. Oh pul-eeze

save those right-wing talking points for another forum.

The dems caved and should have gone to the mat.

[NWHarkness]

29. You are absolutely right

Not that you'll ever convince the scorched earth faction around here.

[many a good man]

30. Our big victory: worse than status quo ante bellum

Victory and defeat are in the eye of the beholder. The Constitution won this round. The media consensus is a win for our side.

Imagine if the nuclear option were never on the table. One year ago we vowed to defeat this group of 8 extremists, using the filibuster if necessary. Today 3 maybe 7 are in and only one is a sure loser. Their nuclear filibuster bluster cost them one news cycle but a net victory.

The long term battle is yet to be decided. Will they stop sending extremist nominee and consult with the minority? What will happen when we threaten to filibuster the next nut job?

[Guaranteed]

31. We've retained the filibuster, and they've signed away the nuclear

option.

We won.

[many a good man]

39. Point is there was no nuclear option ante bellum

I.e., "before the war".

They forego breaking the rules (not an issue ante bellum) and we keep what we already had: the right to filibuster. Plus they get three extremist judges.

Its a win and a loss-- a compromise. In this case the moral victory outweighs the political gain. Democracy lives.

[Guaranteed]

45. If there wasn't we should have said that, and we shouldn't have

even had to threaten them back.

Apparently the Democrats didn't think they could say that.

[LynnTheDem]

85. And just the FACT that the radical right see this as a LOSS for them is a

HUGE WIN for us.

WE WON in Public Opinion, WE WON in rightwingnut opinion.

That alone IS a WIN for us. :)

[Guaranteed]

89. I'm seriously glad to see that you feel that way,

Lynn.

:)

[LynnTheDem]

91. Hey, ANYTHING the rethugs see as a WIN for us and LOSS for them, is in

FACT a WIN for us. That's how the game is won or lost.

We won a lot in this;

-Frist lost.

-Dobson is mad as hell and going on about the "great victory for the united Democrats"; other rethugs are screeching all over the place about their loss.

-The US majority did NOT want filibustering ended, so Dobson is in fact telling the US majority that they got what they wanted...from the DEMS.

-The rethugs cannot spin us as "obstructionist" and THEY are showing themselves to be whining little babies.

-The Dems showed themselves, as the MINORITY without enough votes to get what they want, as the Party that's reasonable and willing to work with the other side.

-We still have the filibuster

-They don't have the nuclear without going back on their word with the vast US majority already opposing the nuclear option.

-We now have more time to 'SPREAD THE WOID' about all the times REPUBS FILIBUSTERED and how it is, in fact, a 200 year tradition to filibuster.

-We now have more time to 'SPREAD THE WOID' about comparisons between rightwingnuts and Clinton nominations versus Dems and bush nominations, and REALLY show what total cry-baby assholes rightwingnuts are.

-We're the MINORITY who didn't have enough votes to win a showdown anyways. Sure we could slow the govt down...and be demonized for being "obstructionists" and have all bush's stupid nominations made judges anyways. WE don't own the media; the right does. They would have pulled out ALL the stops to say WE FORCED the nuclear option, WE went against what the vast US majority don't want.

Cutting off our noses to spite our faces has never been my kinda thing, so yeah I see this as a very good WIN for us and one hell of a loss for the thugs.

But the most important thing is the fact that the REPUBS SEE THIS AS A LOSS FOR THEM.

LOVIN' IT! :D

[La Coliniere]

35. I'm trying to see the glass as half full...

buy my gut says this compromise is really the glass half empty. I think the corporatists and theocrats are the biggest winners tonight. As another poster mentioned, the bar has been set with the unholy three the Dems agreed to allow a vote on. I shudder to think what would occur if the Dems wound up empty handed by totally losing the right to filibuster.
Cheers!

[Guaranteed]

37. No, the bar hasn't been set. That's defeatist garbage.

We have retained our FULL filibuster rights. No one can tell us who we can and can't filibuster, at all, other than those three judges.

The no-filibuster deal was ONLY FOR THOSE THREE JUDGES.

[FreedomAngel82]

38. Same here

The corporations are what won. I have this horrible feeling in my gut.

[indigonation]

40. Agree - better than ramming one through SCOTUS via the nuclear option

And, we don't know for absolute sure how the vote will actually come out in the end on the chosen 3. I heard that too - that 1 may be rejected by some of the moderates anyway. And finally, there may be some checks on them if any do make it up to the SCOTUS in the end.

[wisteria]

41. Yea, we did well, especially when you look at the broader picture.

This was not only about these judicial nominees, it was also about the US Supreme Court vacancy that is more than likely coming very soon. By preserving the right to filibuster we are still able to be a part of this appointment. It also sends a message to Bush and Chaney & Co. that they can't strong arm the Senate to get everything they want.

[CTLawGuy]

bullgoose,

they got FIVE judges and they retained the right to invoke the nuclear option if, in their opinion, the Democrats filibuster in anything but "extraordinary circumstances" (ie, ever).

We got hosed.

[mzmolly]

86. They got the right to VOTE on 5 judges.

:shrug:

[CTLawGuy]

43. bullgoose,

they got FIVE judges and they retained the right to invoke the nuclear option if, in their opinion, the Democrats filibuster in anything but "extraordinary circumstances" (ie, ever).

We got hosed.

[Guaranteed]

47. Look:

"B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit)."

Those are the other two judges. We've made no commitments, i.e. we can filibuster them. They got thrown out, basically.

And this:

"B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII."

They've thrown out the nuclear option.

That's what the agreement is. Why do you want it to be worse than that? It's all right there in black and white.

[CTLawGuy]

54. what something SAYS and what the REALITY is

is different. Repugs have no honor, they will bring back the nuclear option next time the dems filibuster.

[Guaranteed]

56. That is the AGREEMENT. If they go back on the agreement,

we call them chiselers and cheats in front of everyone and we shut down the Senate, with good reason.

Are you just saying we can make NO agreements with them?

[CTLawGuy]

59. the agreement is vague enough to give them cover

to bring back the N.O. if we filibuster AT ALL. They'll just claim it's not "extraordinary circumstances".

this is an IWR style resolution. Vague.

[Guaranteed]

62. It's at the discretion of each signatory.

It doesn't say that they have the right to judge the discretion of each signatory.

[CTLawGuy]

64. why would they agree to that?

that would be allowing us to filibuster whenever we wanted as long as we called it "extraordinary". They would not do that.

[Guaranteed]

66. They did. nt

[CTLawGuy]

71. no, they didn't

if you think they would respect our deterimination of what is "extraordinary circumstances" then you don't understand republicans.

The point is to provide cover for them to bring back the nuclear option next time we filibustered.

[Guaranteed]

73. It's not up to them. It's at OUR discretion.

That's what "discretion" means.

[CTLawGuy]

75. they would NOT agree to that

lets say what you claim is really what that means..

that means we could filibuster anyone we wanted, as long as we claimed circumstances were "extraordinary". they couldn't challenge us. they would be screwing themselves over. Dems do that, Repugs don't.

look at Dewine's comments.

"Some of you who are looking at the language may wonder what some of the clauses mean. The understanding is – and we don’t think this will happen – but if an individual senator believes in the future that a filibuster is taking place under something that’s not extraordinary circumstances, we of course reserve the right to do what we could have done tomorrow which is to cast a yes vote for the constitutional option ."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/23/204634/095

[Guaranteed]

76. They did! I don't give a shit about his spin!

That's what the agreement says!

[CTLawGuy]

87. well my friend

you will be disappointed one day. If you think they will honor this agreement, and let the Democrats have unquestioned discretion to filibuster, you are sadly wrong. The Repugs WILL question any dem filibuster and claim dems are breaking the agreement. Then we'll see the N.O. again.

[Guaranteed]

88. That's not what Kos said:

www.dailykos.com

Scroll down a bit and look at his comment regarding the DeWine comments to which you're growing so attached.

[CTLawGuy]

93. hmm

maybe you know different Republicans than I do.

I know the republicans who:

1. Hold votes open for 3 hours longer than they should be open because they can't get the result they want.

2. redistrict in the middle of the decade in blatant violation of the Constitution

3. lie about evidence leading to an endless war.

4. Approve torture, through extraordinary rendition and other means.

5. Try to excuse violence against federal judges

6. Try to shut down a legal recount of votes because their guy happens to be ahead.

7. Spend 40 million dollars on a bogus investigation and partisan impeachment of a sitting president

8. blatantly lie about evidence of WMD to the United Nations

9. bribe their own party members on the floor for a favorable vote

10. Plant fake news reporters in the white house to ask softball questions and make the president look good.

And thats just 10 things.

You are asking me to believe the Republicans will NOT question the discretion of the Democrats in filibustering.

Perhaps you know different republicans than I do.....

[Guaranteed]

95. Maybe Kos is thinking of someone else, too.

All I know is they made an agreement. They're expected to keep to it.

[PowerToThePeople]

46. We won shit

We gave them their judges, and don't have anything for it..

[immoderate]

96. That seems correct to me.

We were extorted.

--IMM

[paineinthearse]

49. I'm still absorbing and processing this, but when I read

..."they only got two fascist judges out of it...." the first thought that came to mind is that federal judges can be impeached.

[aion]

50. Silly wabbit, the Constitution is the only thing which won

And as the Constitution/filibuster benefits both parties throughout history, it cannot be considered more of a win for one side than the other. It's not like Republicans are going to hessitate to use the filibuster when/if they find themselves in the minority again.

If you have nothing more than you did before the battle started, I don't believe you've won anything.

[Guaranteed]

51. We won the battle.

Don't play bullshit wordgames. If you're actually waiting to win someTHING, like I said to someone up thread, you're going to be waiting quite awhile.

Be happy that we beat them back.

[aion]

78. Bullshit word games? You are playing bullshit logic with yourself

I am not playing any bullshit word games with you. I am accusing you of playing bullshit logic with yourself, though. Fool yourself all you like. You have nothing more than you had a year ago -- the filibuster stays, but cannot be counted as a win for either side. And while you are sitting there congratulating yourself for 'beating them back', perhaps you should notice the 3 extremist judges that are now going to go through. And the fate of the other 2 is far from certain -- they could go through as well. You would call that a victory? Talk about foolin yerself...

We lost -- but the republic stands

[mmonk]

52. It's great to be bullied into

giving them their most radical judges. All they had to do was to propose to break Senate rules. They still reserve their "right" to break Senate rules the next time. I'm so happy we "won".:sarcasm:

[Guaranteed]

53. HERE'S THE WHOLE MEMO- READ CAREFULLY.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS


We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.


This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.


We have agreed to the following:


Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations

A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).



B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).


Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations


A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. 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.

B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “Advice” speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.

---------------------

The very short version:

We committed to not filibustering those three judges. That's ALL we committed to.

THEY committed to not using the nuke option for at least the rest of the session. They probably wouldn't even be able to use it afterward if they couldn't this time around.

They got three judges a vote. One of those judges probably won't be confirmed. So they got two judges.

That's it. Everything else is the same.

[mmonk]

61. Is breaking the rules mentioned?

Everyone is supposed to be commited to Senate rules. We had them before the nuclear option threat.

[johnaries]

69. Thanks for posting that. Reading it, it's actually much better

than the impression I got from the local news. I'm still not too happy that the worst 2 will probably be confirmed, but I'm willing to wait a few days to see how the spin goes.

[mmonk]

74. Also, does this apply to the whole Senate

or just the signatories to the compromise?

[Telly Savalas]

101. Does it matter?

Can Frist get enough votes to go nuclear if he doesn't have the Republican signatories in his pocket?

[IndianaGreen]

55. We won nothing!

Watching the so-called "moderates" congratulate themselves on their compromise, I couldn't help but to wonder what precisely they compromised about. Three truly awful judicial nominees will get a free pass from the Senate, and the Democrats promised to use the filibuster only when Bush nominates a child molester to the federal bench.

This agreement smacks of appeasement. When we should have stood shoulder to shoulder with Democratic Leader Harry Reid, a handful of Chamberlains decided to give Frist his judges with a promise that filibuster would be permitted at a future date under extraordinary circumstances.

The Munich Agreement was popular with most people in Britain because it appeared to have prevented a war with Germany. However, some politicians, including Winston Churchill and Anthony Eden, attacked the agreement.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWmunich.htm

[Q]

65. The 'moderates' have neutered the Dem party...

...and they're the only reason there WAS a compromise. I'm not at all surprised to see Joe 'don't be mean to corporations' (Enron) Lieberman at the head of the table on this 'deal'.

I simply can't believe that anyone can call it a 'win' to compromise with those trying to destroy the Democratic party AND this nation. But what really hurts the party is the fact that this is but ONE compromise/defeat among many in the last five years. Since 2000...the Democratic party has given the Bushie Neocon/theocrats EVERYTHING they've ever wanted.

Democrats have agreed to ignore stolen elections and fraud. Disenfranchisement, civil rights violations and purging of voter rolls. They 'agreed' not to include the Bush WH in the 9-11 investigations...with the end result being Bush becoming a 'war president' and hero to his party instead of a bumbling fool that went on vacation and allowed one of the most serious security breaches in our history to happen on his watch.

Democrats have had dozens of opportunities to expose this corrupt administration. But the so-called Centrists in the party won't allow that to happen. Why?

[erpowers]

98. Win?

I do not see how some people hear think we won when Bush gets some of his worst nominees. The two judges that do get by the Senate can do a large amount of damage. I think the Democrats should have fought harder.

Does anyone feel that to a degree the nuclear option was used without some Democrats even knowing. The point of the nuclear option was to stop the filibuster. This supposed compromise took the filibuster off the table for at least three judges. It seems to me that the nuclear option was used just it was done quitly and with less damage.

[markus]

57. This will only be true if two things hol dout

1) One of the Terrible Three goes down on an up or down vote.

2) The compromise holds up during a SCOTUS nomination.

All they have to do it turn over of the six of the GOP side of the Gang of 12, and item 2 is done.

On item one, I have no idea. But I think its unlikely as hell.

I like surprises, but I don't count on them (except at work, were I test software, and I don't like the surprises but do count on them. That is a different world. It does, however, teach me to be suspicious of documentation and to trust-but-verify.)

[Guaranteed]

58. They have to hold to it or they're cheats.

And we shut down the Senate.

[Q]

67. Everyone knows they're CHEATS...including the cheats...

...do you really think they're afraid of being called cheats?

We can expect our party to be in the minority for a very long time with this type of clouded strategy.

[markus]

60. Six of Frist's 55 votes were sitting in that room

Man, with all the people watching poker on TV, you think more could read an obvious bluff bet.

Or was it?

And now comes the "compromise" which moves the bar for nomination from Right Wing Whacko to Deranged Wingnut Freeper and gives us nothing tangible in return.

Somewhere, I guy named Karl is laid back in his Barcalounger eating an entire pint of Hagen Das in his boxers and laughing his ass off at cable television. And he's not watching South Park.

[Guaranteed]

63. The "bar" is at the discretion of each signatory. nt

[markus]

68. Yes, each of them. Seperately.

I wish I had the list back in front of me. Only one or two on the GOP side need to decide, Hell yes, they're abusing the process. Let's nuke em. And it's over.

The GOP isnt interested in the comity of the Senate. It's interested in raw, naked power. This will no more stop them than the non-agreesion pact stopped That Austrian Fellah We're Not Supposed To Mention.

[Guaranteed]

72. They're not the ones filibustering, though.

See, the funny thing is that YOU are now arguing THEIR SIDE. Talk about being defeatist- do you see what you're doing? You're giving up our right, right NOW. As you're arguing this.

Get out there and DECLARE our RIGHT TO FILIBUSTER. They're trying to spin it away. Don't let them do that.

Don't fight me. Don't the other Democrats. Stand up for that right.

[tedzbear]

77. I will wait to see what Gore Vidal says about this compromise...

...before I decide who really won here. He's pretty knowledgable about politics.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

79. It amazes me...

...how many people around here are demanding that the democrats begin stomping around as if they've got a bulletproof majority, and that this battle is somehow isolated from the rest of senate business. I have to assume that a lot of these people are new to politics and don't understand the role of compromise in government, especially in the Senate. I have to assume they don't understand exactly how powerful the conservate spin machine really is, compared to our own.

This agreement retains our right to fillibuster judicial nominees, while at the same time delivers a bipartisan bitch-slap to Bush and the Senate GOP leadership for their behaviour on judicial nominations. The Republicans, regardless of their superior numbers, are obviously having difficulty getting their members to toe the line. This agreement makes that difficulty very public and very embarassing. I was assuming we'd get completely steamrolled on this one, and I'm not particularly happy with the overall result, but the most important thing has been accomplished - retaining the fillibuster for Bush's supreme court nominations. There's literally no reason the republicans couldn't have won this fight outright, consequences of the nuclear option be damned. Whatever politica fallout they would have suffered would pale in comparison to the political gains they'd receive from being able to unilaterally shape the Supreme Court for the next 20 years. I don't understand why people don't get this. We may very well have just saved Roe v. Wade, affirmitive action, the minimum wage, business regulations, and a whole plethora of issues which will be before the Supreme Court countless times in the next 20 years. This is a very good thing.

[LynnTheDem]

81. We won; Frist lost big time.

And in Public Opinion, we truly are THE winners and whooo boy the repugs LOST in that arena. :)

[Deja Q]

90. Dead for this year, surely?

They will find a way to resuscitate it so they can play with us once again. And we'll be more than happy to capitulate. Once again.

They're getting their way regardless. It's just a game and none of them is going to lose their jobs or after-service benefits, which are almost as obscene as severance packages for large corporate CEOs who get fired. (they get golden parachutes, we get golden showers.)

[Lannes]

92. Its early but..

I havent had too much time to consider the ramifications of this deal, but Im reading quotes that Reid is happy about the deal and Frist isnt.That has to be good news.

[Vinca]

94. I don't think this is a "win" as much as a "time out."

If Democrats think Republicans will allow them to filibuster future Supreme Court nominees, someone's been slipping Kool-Aid into the water cooler. When the time comes, we'll see the "nuclear/Constitutional/turnip" option part deux. In the end, they were going to get those 3 judges anyway. We might as well bend over and take it until we get a majority.

[TreasonousBastard]

103. We survived...

which is as good as a win under the circumstances.