To all who believe the "compromise" is a victory...

[CTLawGuy]

I ask you:

What will actually stop this situation from happening?

1. 3 months pass
2. Justice Rehnquist retires from the bench
3. the Republicans nominate Alberto Gonzales to the bench.
4. In Reid's estimate, Gonzales has 53 yes votes.
5. Reid, claiming that "41 senators believe that there are extraordinary circumstances" calls for a filibuster of Gonzales.
6. Bill Frist claims that the filibuster is out of order and that the Democrats are abusing their discretion, in effect denying that "extraordinary circumstances" exist.
7. Frist claims that Democrats "have broken the agreement"
8. Frist asserts that in response to this "callous disrespect for the agreement", the GOP has the right to bring back the Nuclear Option.
9. Claiming they are left no choice because of "Democratic backstabbing", the republicans schedule a cloture vote for Gonzales, threatening to use the option on that day, blaming it on Democrats.
10. We are back where we were on the morning of May 23rd, except with 3 more approved right-wing judges on the bench.


What is to stop that from happening?

[shoelace414]

1. 7 republican senators

(hopefully)

[Zhade]

3. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

No, really - what's to prevent this from happening?

Does anyone seriously think these 7 REPUBLICANS will not be threatened into breaking the agreement?

If so, those people probably thought Iraq had WMD, too!

[MADem]

11. Warner does not dig that kind of pressure from punks like PissyFrist

...and neither does McCain. Pissy is a newcomer who does not understand the collegial aspect of the Senate, he serves as a slavish and rather ineffective pitbull for the White House. Trent Lott must be enjoying his discomfiture.

The truth of the matter is, this agreement did indeed "move the goalposts" so that all would live to fight another day, but it did do one good thing, and it is something that all of the Democrats, and some Republicans (the moderates and those planning on running in 08) can get behind: it made PissyFrist look like an ineffectual dweeb. And weakness stinks like a pile of dogshit on a hot summer day. It damaged the GOP, and Pissy specifically.

So in that sense, it was a good thing. The GOP is gonna have to get some poll numbers up before they can run totally roughshod. We're tired of Terra, Terra, Terra, Social Security is not playing in Peoria, and the weakening economy is not helping Chimpco, either. He may just have to leave Iraq to the Iraqis and declare victory, or just annex the oilfields and put an electric fence along the pipelines, and hide all his personnel who will be tasked with preserving those assets in his four Iraqi megabases.

[Zhade]

25. You're kidding, right? Look at how they've pressured Chafee over Bolton!

If Chafee can be pressured, this deal is not sound.

Maybe Frist looks bad - depends on the spin. Not worth the price that was paid, IMHO. Besides, you're speaking like there aren't electronic voting machines covering 30% of the vote in this country.

I'm not convinced this is really anything but a delaying tactic that cost way too much.

[MADem]

34. Linc Chafee is a child, John Warner is an old man with a solid

and longstanding reputation, and many decades of government service behind him. He is a Senate lion, Linc is but a pup. They aren't even comparable in terms of gravitas or experience.

Linc has a ways to go, like, say, several DECADES, before he has the political savvy of John Warner. And Warner does not suffer fools. He can be very sharp and abrasive, and he knows how to bark an order.

Linc can be bullied, Warner will eat anyone who screws with him for lunch.

[sellitman]

4. We are screwed!

Plain and simple!

[rowire]

27. Frist Only Needs 3 of the 7 Senators

to go nuklar. Actually, he probably only needs two of the seven to go along and that would create a 50-50 tie that would be broken by Cheney. Are we really going to put our hopes on 6 of 7 Republicans backing a filibuster. No freaking way. We are screwed.

[ananda]

2. exactly nothing

Nothing will stop that from happening.

As someone here said, the Dems get to keep the filibuster..

.. as long as they don't use it.

Checks and balances are officially dead.

Sue, grieving

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

5. The entire reasoning for this compromise...

...on the Democrats' side of the asile is that they get to keep the fillibuster for USSC nominees. It will be *much* harder for the republicans to invoke it after today.

[Disturbed]

7. This is not a win for Dems at all.

7 Repubs have to agree that a nominee is under the concept of "extraordinary circumstances" meaning way out of the mainstream. If they do so then no filibuster is needed. If they don't agree then the Dems cannot filibuster. How is this compromise a win for Dems?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

13. If we fought, we would have lost.

You're also misreading the agreement. If we'd have fought this, we would have lost the filibuster. Can you say Chief Justice Dobson?

[ClintonTyree]

17. Or we would have finally stood up to them....

actually had a fight with them, shut down the damn government and then let the court of public opinion decide. We wussed out. Dems NEVER want to get in a fight, they'll always "compromise", meaning they'll bend over and take it in the ass again.

You're correct, we didn't lose the filibuster, but we can't use it either. The filibuster has been locked behind a "break glass in case of emergency" cabinet and the glass can only be broken if BOTH parties agree to break it. If you think the Pukes are ever going to agree on the "extreme" issue with the Dems, you're dream walking. The filibuster, for all intents and purposes, is dead.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

18. i disagree

actually had a fight with them, shut down the damn government and then let the court of public opinion decide.

Umm... the court of public opinion doesn't decide these matters. The senate does. I'm sure the republicans would be more than willing to take a temporary popularity hit in exchange for the chance to shape USSC decisions for the next 20 years.

We wussed out.

That's like saying a kamikaze who had second thoughts is a wuss. We were on a very self-destructive path before today. We would have lost, and you seem to feel that it'd be worth losing everything we care about just so we can say we stood up to them. That isn't good political strategy. Hell, it's not even good military strategy. It's "bring 'em on" writ large.

You're correct, we didn't lose the filibuster, but we can't use it either.

Yes we can. Look beyond the wording of the statement to what the republicans who signed it are telling their leadership. You know how rare it is for republican members of congress to stand up to their own leadership? This was a message to Frist and Bush - don't tread on us. These guys will not roll over quickly. They put their credibility on the line.

the glass can only be broken if BOTH parties agree to break it.

I'm sorry, but you are completely misreading the statement, and completely ignoring its contextual and political meaning. Ask yourself why on God's green earth the Democrats would ever agree to such a thing? It makes no sense whatsoever.

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Nothing will stop that from happening and THAT is EXACTLY what WILL happen. :(

[EFerrari]

8. If we had a whole brain among us, we'd start outing Torquemada

right now to people who aren't paying attention. Like our senators.

The man is yet another sociopath. And I can say that en Espanol, too.

And, what was this ballet supposed to distract us from?

[H2O Man]

9. Replacing Rehnquist

with another far-right justice is really not the most significant problem. Take what you are saying to the next step: when one of the "swing" votes (O'Connor) retires, then you will have a change that will really count.

Also, keep in mind that the three judges that will now be voted on, and who will surely be seated, are going to be at the second-highest level of the federal courts. They will decide more cases than the Supremes. They all show a strong distain for the Bill of Rights.

This is a very sad day for those who believe in the Bill of Rights, and who have an appreciation for the separation of powers in the federal government. Justice compromised is justice denied.

[CTLawGuy]

10. I am just annoyed by the people who refuse to see

the truth about this bullshit compromise, talk about denial.

Anyway, see you guys again at 6pm! Off to work.

[Sterling]

43. I can't believe that people are still this oblivious.

I have not a tiny hope of stoping the RW hate machine. In large part because I can stilll in this late hour pop into DU for a few minutes and find people who are still trying to make excuses for the failure of our elected officials to attempt to win at anything.

Bought and sold, 90% of both parties.

[Coexist]

12. according to the "Big 14"

they, since they have the votes to sway either the filibuster or nuclear option, will pretty much decide which judicial nominees get okayed.

The are the new "moderate caucus"!!!!

[Guaranteed]

14. What would have kept that from happening if we hadn't compromised?

You all seem to be forgetting that it's the VERY SAME nuclear option, either way.

So what the FUCK are you complaining about??

[Coexist]

15. err... nothing...

[Guaranteed]

16. At least this way we have an agreement to hold them to.

AND we've gotten the issue out into the public with all the coverage last night.

AND we've got all kind of Repukes on the record now saying how important the filibuster is for democracy.

[Coexist]

19. sanity and foresight have no place in this discussion

thank you very much.

[CTLawGuy]

29. the nuclear option might have failed to stand up to objection

there might be such a public backlash the republicans would go back on it....

[lovuian]

20. Democrats Won thats why Reid was smiling & Boxer

if we would have lost the Fillabuster this country would have been screwed!!!

Whats pretty obvious is 7 Republicans have broken ranks and are not going along with the Bush Agenda thats pretty obvious!!!

[Gothmog]

21. Supreme court fight is more high profile

I think that it will be difficult to use the nuclear option during a supreme court nomination. It will likely be perceived as a change of the rules in midstream. The GOP wanted the nuclear option exercised well in advance of a supreme court fight.

I am more worried about Scalia or Thomas being made chief justice. That would be an extraordinary circumstance in my opinion

[Strawman]

23. CJ is still only one vote

I'm less worried about that title change than a nomination which would shift the balance of the court further to the right. I think "extrordinary circumstances" will probably be interpreted as something like when Bush attempts to replace a moderate or liberal SCOTUS justice with a conservative.

I think you raise a really good point though. The GOP wanted this power grab to occur outside the spotlight of a SCOTUS nomination, and they failed.

[Strawman]

22. I just don't know

I have to wonder what exactly constitute "extraordinary circumstances" if Owen and Brown are acceptable. If they're ok, I don't know how Gonzales could be much worse. He's clearly more in the mainstream than Owen. What good is the filibuster if they can never use it against this President's judicial nominees beyond a couple district court judges? Is there some additional understanding that Bush will only nominate moderates in the future? I doubt it. We could end up back in the same place when a SCOTUS nomination takes place, although I don't expect much of a battle over the Rehnquist replacement. Democratic Senators will probably be willing to let Bush replace a conservative with another conservative. Replacing O'Connor, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter or Stevens I think would put us right back to yesterday.

On the other hand, I'm glad that this did not play out. I don't think we had the votes. Specter would have voted for the nuclear option. These judges would have been voted upon and confirmed anyway. (http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/052405/specter.html). We would have needed both DeWine and Lindsay Graham to vote against it, and I don't think that was likely. If the choice was between concentrating power in the hands of Bill Frist (and in essence the White House) and this compromise, the compromise doesn't look so bad. Had this played itself out we would have been forced to retaliate and they would have probably retaliated against that in a way that would have radically changed the Senate. I think I'm glad this was stopped here.

The Senate acted as a "cooling saucer" yesterday, but this will heat up again. Hopefully, after 2006 we'll be in a better position to beat it straight up without a compromise.

[jzodda]

24. The answer to your question is...

Nothing can stop that from happening if thats what the GOP decides to do. We are in a position now where fillibusters just got harder to organize on any judicial nominee.

BUT....this is where we are cause we have done nothing but LOSE since 1998. The other side can pretty much do what they want, with only a small group of moderate republican senators as the stopgap. We are stuck here untill at least 2006, more likely 2008 though. Not a good place to be in, but its reality

[newyawker99]

61. Hi jzodda!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Swamp Rat]

26. Nothing

Never make deals with fascists.

[nonconformist]

28. Nothing at all. nt

[LynnTheDem]

30. What if...

Martians invade us next week, wiping us all out so that in fact this isn't important in the scheme of things?

[CTLawGuy]

31. self-deleted

Nt

[CTLawGuy]

32. I'm sorry you won't take this possibility as being seriously likely to

happen. Don't be surprised when it does though.

[LynnTheDem]

35. Then it HAPPENS when and if it happens.

For TODAY we did good. DAMN good.

Tomorrow we may lose everything by having to force a showdown vote & losing the vote.

OH WELL. Shall I commit hari kari tonight?

ONE DAY AT A TIME. ONE VICTORY no matter how small or how tenous, AT A TIME.

[CTLawGuy]

37. its like getting a death sentence for next month and saying

its a victory because I'm still alive today.

[LynnTheDem]

40. Yep. Exactly. Or would you prefer to die today?

Hmmm?

[CTLawGuy]

45. no i'd prefer to FIGHT my execution

rather than be happy it was delayed a month.....

[LynnTheDem]

54. And by "fight" you mean force a showdown we would LOSE and then

REALLY be up the creek.

Whatever. Your mind is set, no use in continuing this discussion.

Have a nice day. :)

[CTLawGuy]

55. yeah, lets not fight

thats obviously the solution :eyes:

RUN AWAY!

Bravely ran away away!

Brave sir Robin.

[Dave Reynolds]

33. But the Martians are not due until 2011.

So what until then?

When in trouble or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

[LynnTheDem]

36. Oh well, then we have oodles of time!

:D

[K-W]

38. You are assuming they will win every battle, a rather silly assumption.

You are suggesting that living to fight another day is not a victory because we will lose that other day.

The republicans were poised to eliminate the filibuster, thereaby granting 100% of the judges Bush wants right now. Instead they allowed only 3 and the filibuster lived to fight another day, another day when Bush's approval will probably be lower, and the religious right will probably have lost credibility with the general public, not to mention that the compromise itself inflames divisions withing the republican party, greatly weakening thier ability to unify behind this issue again, and priming the public to be skeptical if they try it again.

I cant really think of any reason why you would want to have the filibuster battle now rather than later, so Im really not sure what the point of your post is.

[CTLawGuy]

39. because later

they can claim they are invoking the N.O. because "those evil dems broke that lil ol' agreement" and "those nasty backstabbing dems left them no choice."

They have no such excuse today.

[LynnTheDem]

41. yes so let's just force a showdown vote and lose today.

Why bother giving them a chance to force us to a showdown vote down the road, when circumstances may have changed for the better for us.

Or as you put it; let's be executed today instead of a month from now. Now there's a brilliant plan.

[CTLawGuy]

44. no, lets challenge our execution

lets appeal to get a new trial.

And how are circumstances supposed to change for the better? When they can claim we broke the agreement and have a fig leaf for their immoral abuse of power?

[K-W]

50. Im really not sure where you are coming from.

Not only do you express an unrealisitic pessimism about our chances to win this fight down the road, you also express an unrealistic optimism about our chances to have won the battle if we fought it today.

The simple fact is that the republicans had the votes today, we would have lost and there would be nobody to appeal to.

Instead we stopped thier efforts, eliminated thier victory, drew divisions in the Republican party and kept the filibuster alive to fight another day.

It isnt a victory in the sense that it is a compromise, niether victory, nor defeat, but it certainly isnt what you paint it as.

[CTLawGuy]

56. you are overly cynical

if you think the public would tolerate people who have obvious contempt for the rules and basic fairness.

Look at the latest polls regarding opinions on the approval of judges and the filibuster.

[LynnTheDem]

53. I am sorry you can't or won't see that the Dems did the best they could

for the situation we are in.

You, of course, are free to call Dems losers adn cave-in-ers and whatever else.

Have a nice day. :)

[CTLawGuy]

57. and you are free

to "lay back and enjoy it" (in a legislative sense ONLY)

as some say...

[LynnTheDem]

60. I am...and I am!

Between the choice of a total loss...and a compromise with the bonus of the radical right tearing into & further dividing the republican party?

HELL YEAH I'm enjoying the compromise! :)

[CTLawGuy]

62. how do you know we wouldn't have quashed the nuclear option?

Cheney's ruling would have needed to be upheld by a majority of senators. How do you know we would not have gotten that many?

Instead we got a fragile and vague agreement that essentially allows the pugs to bring back the N.O. but with political cover this time.

[LynnTheDem]

63. How do you knw we would have?

Enough already, this is a waste of time.

Hope you have a great week. :)

[CTLawGuy]

64. you too friend

i don't know we would have. That's the problem with Dems, they are so risk averse. You can't win or be sucessful in politics if you are risk averse.

I don't know if Ill graduate from law school, but it doesn't mean I am not going to go there.

hope to talk to you again next time Democrats try to filibuster and get accused of breaking the agreement.

hope you dont get a case in front of Appeals Judges Owen or Pryor :hi:

[K-W]

47. Actually that is almost identical to thier excuse today,

Have you been paying any attention to this issue?

The republican argument is that the democrats are abusing the age old filibuster tradition by using it in new and obstructionist ways. Basically the exact same lie as saying they are abusing the deal inappropriately.

Meanwhile you ignore the fact that next time the democrats could complain that the Republicans were going back on thier word. Which they truely couldnt claim before.

[CTLawGuy]

48. and who will get more play and more credibility?

who ALWAYS does?

I guess you must think that Limpballs, the Hannity and Hannity show, Fux News, and Michael Whiner spout left-wing propaganda all day

[K-W]

51. Once again, your argument is that they will always win, a bad argument

assuming that the status quo will be the status quo forever is one of the oldest bad assumptions in human history.

[CTLawGuy]

58. no

I assume they have no scruple and no compunction about trampling on the rules and bare powergrabbing.

these are the same people who held the medicare vote open for 3 hours and bribed their own colleagues to get their votes.

these are the same people that rammed an unfair redistricting plan through mid-decade in texas.

these are the same people that told lies and bogged us down in a quagemire based on those lies.

put NOTHING past these people.

[neuvocat]

42. *sigh*

Fine. Clearly this is all a total failure and everyone from Barbara Boxer to Move On is totally delusional. Their knowledge of politics is powerless against your complete powers of deduction and future telling.

I'm just gonna start hiding negative threads like these. They're totally useless.

[CTLawGuy]

46. good, have fun in fantasy land

sorry to wake you up :eyes:

[sellitman]

49. Clearly we should make up your own minds and not follow

Barbara Boxer and others around like sheep. I am a huge Boxer fan but she and every talking head out their who claims we won a great moral victory here are delusional. What good is the frigging filibuster if we cannot use it?

[Starlight]

59. I agree completely. What did we "win"? Nothing!

Repubs promised to let Dems keep the filibuster as long as they promise not to use it. But if they try to use it, all bets are off. What kind of victory is that? :crazy:

[mmonk]

52. Nothing

All any of the seven have to say is the dems went back on their word because this isn't an extraordinary circumstance, so they aren't bound. It's all pretty simple.