I have one question about this filibuster 'deal.'

[Plaid Adder]

What makes anyone think the Republicans in power have any intention of honoring their end of it?

Bush has made something of a trademark out of breaking treaties and refusing to honor commitments. The attitude his lackeys in Congress have always taken is that they will roll over the opposition with a tank and once everyone's flattened nobody will hear them complaining. So a bunch of Republican moderates have signed a promise to take the nuclear option off the table. Why would anyone in their right mind believe that this will really hold up? Frist et al. are never going to consider themselves bound by this and they'll never care about the consequences of breaking any of its terms. He'll bring back the 'nuclear option' as soon as it's expedient. You watch.

Oy! Do not negotiate with people who have already proven that they do not honor their promises! Make them fight and make them lose! Dammit!!!

Sigh,

The Plaid Adder

[whistle]

1. Frist is positioning right now to throw the agreement out...

...so if the three judges are voted on today and all three are confirmed, Frist is saying he will insist on the other four being given the vote and if not, he'll still use the nuclear option. He is not letting it go.

[Mandate My Ass]

2. My prediction

The first time the dems balk at some extremist loon job, the repukes will say we are being obstructionists and that their hand has been forced. THey'll whine that they took the nuclear option off the table on the belief that the dems would be "reasonable" and they're not so .... :nuke:

[moondust]

5. And the Rabid Right will demand the nuclear option again.

Frist will oblige at the drop of a hat.

Little doubt that the arm twisting has already commenced.

[notadmblnd]

3. I really don't know what to think of all of it

I can see that it put off what would have happened today until a later date.. But I also see that the fundie wingnuts were smacked royally yesterday. If the religious wingnuts had had their way.. the path to theoracy would have been paved.

[EFerrari]

4. Do not negotiate with terrorists

I'm hoping that Harry Reid is smarter than I am. :(

[merh]

25. Not negiotiating with terrorists

Just playing better poker, imho!
See
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3716283&mesg_id=3716658

heck, the whole thread is a good one! :hi:

[EFerrari]

27. I hope you're right. What I'm really hoping is that they just

killed Frist's political career because they don't need him as much as he thinks they do.

This is like that multi-level chess they used to play on the REAL "Star Trek".
:)

[merh]

29. Shhhhhh, no talk of layers and nuances, that is

much too complicated for the sheeple and the masses.

:rofl:

Frist's career is in jeopardy as is McCain's - the base hates them both right now with dripping passions and perverse disdain.

We live to fight another day. :shrug: That to me is always a victory.



edited because I cannot spell and I can barely type! :argh:

[Jack Rabbit]

6. Frist has no choice in the matter

The agreement is among 14 moderate senators from both parties. Since Frist is not a moderate senator, he is not party to this agreement.

There are enough Republicans signing on to this agreement that Frist would not be able to force through an outrageous nomination or trigger the nuclear option without their support. There are also enough Democrats signing on that unless the nomination is really something out of the ordinary, a filibuster will fail.

These 14 senators hold the balance of power on either side. As long as they stick to the agreement, it will hold no matter what Senator Frist does.

Now, this is not in my view a perfect agreement. However, if I were lend somebody $20 until pay day, I'd sooner lend that money to Senator McCain than Senator Frist.

[Plaid Adder]

7. OK, but this agreement puts 3 "outrageous nominations" through anyway.

I mean Priscilla Owen, who I know the most about from her days on the Texas Supreme Court, is someone who will just make up her own laws in order to get the decision to come out on the side of big business--and that's before we get into the abortion stuff. There's a reason these 3 people were filibustered.

So, you know, if these 14 senators were committed to, say, voting AGAINST confirming Owen, Pryor and Brown, that would be something. I just can't see this as anything but another sign that the moderates really don't know who they're dealing with.

Well, maybe it will turn out better than I think,

The Plaid Adder

[Jack Rabbit]

8. Like I said, it wasn't a perfect agreement

Of course, there is probably no such thing as a perfect agreement in a situation like this.

Without this agreement, the nuclear option would likely have been triggered and Bush could have named Attila the Hun to the Supreme Court without having to worry about the nomination being blocked. In response, Democrats would have ground all other Senate business to a halt.

I don't like those three judges, either; but they are the price of the agreement. Not all of the 14 senators are going to vote against their nominations; not all will vote for them, either. They will get a vote. Myers and Saad will be subject to filibuster.

As progressives, we aren't being asked to like it. However, we weren't going to win this fight. There was no way we could.

If this deal can hold, I'll take it. It's better that what could have been.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Shhhhhh!! Just keep repeating, "We won!" "We won!"

Soon, you'll be feeling drowsy..verrrry drowsssy. And, when you awake you'll feel fine and joyful at our "victory".

[Jack Rabbit]

19. One of the problems we're having is that terminology

It isn't a win or a loss. It is a compromise.

There is no game to finish.

Whether this works or not remains to be seen. What we can say is:

• Had there been no agreement, the nuclear option would have been triggered and all five judges in question would likely have been confirmed on a party-line vote.
• Had there been no agreement, Bush would have been free to make any outrageous nomination to any federal court, including the Supreme Court, and had a reasonable expectation that Senate Republicans would have rubber stamped his choice.
• There is a chance the agreement will unravel as the gang of 14 (not a monolithic group by any means) disagree on whether a particular nominee is an "extraordinary circumstance" that merits a filibuster.

[earth mom]

9. I don't trust the rethugs either....

and have the uneasy feeling that this is a setup of some kind. Yeah it's nice to have Frist all pissed off, but they did get the judges they wanted after all didn't they? So in that sense they won...and I don't trust that they won't try to pull the nuke option again because lying and cheating is what the rethugs do best. They are never happy until they annihilate the opposition and get what they want.

:nuke:

[0007]

10. I agree with you whole heartely...I believe we have them where the

hair is short. Either which way the repukes were gonna book a looser. Now the day is open for a another fight when the repukes will be able to fine tune their "Nuclear plan" - and trust me they will!

We had public opinion on our side and we gave it up!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. If they're "moderates" why are they backing 3 rightwing fanatics?

The 3 will now sail through unopposed by a filibuster. That being the case, what will it take for the "moderates" oppose that won't trigger the still available nuclear option.

We got raped and are being told that we should lie back and enjoy it by the "moderate" rapists when they do it again.

[OilemFirchen]

13. Who says they are?

The 14 agreed to an up-or-down vote.

Were I you, I'd wait until the vote is tallied to determine if they also agreed to " 3 rightwing fanatics".

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. 2 will be confirmed...for sure.

I think all three will be confirmed, but that's just a hunch. Anyway, the "agreement" is for the 109th congress ONLY. Stay tuned for the nuclear option during a SCOTUS nomination.

[OilemFirchen]

28. I look forward to it.

And you should really make up your mind.

If the Dems have no chance of winning another election ever again, then why on earth does this matter to you?

[in_cog_ni_to]

34. Why do I care about the repukes stacking the SCOTUS?????

Because I'm a female who watched the long, hard fought battle on abortion rights. I know about all the women who died from self abortions with clothes hangers. I heard about all the back alley abortions where women had abortions with filthy, dirty medical equiptment, I've watched women have babies they didn't want and I know about women who had to raise money to be able to afford to go to another country to get an abortion. That's just the abortion issue. Then we have the environment, health care, Social Security, ect... That's why. Besides that, I'm entitled to an opinion whether you like it or not.

[Strawman]

14. Only problem is that they would not have lost

Frist would have had all his ducks in a row. Nothing would have been standing in the way of Chief Justice Ashcroft or someone similar to him.

[lastliberalintexas]

18. And nothing stands in the way of that now

Even assuming for argument's sake that the republicans do honor this agreement, there is nothing to prevent them from using the nuclear option in the next Congress. Given recent activity on the Court, it's unlikely that any of the justices are set to retire before the next term at least. And then Bush just has to stall for a little time until the 110th Congress, and bam! you get a Chief Justice Ashcroft. Or worse.

And they basically have a blank check for appointments to the lower courts now. For some reason, our party doesn't seem to understand just how much damage can be inflicted in the trenches of the justice system, and has tunnel vision in trying to protect the SC. It isn't the only court that matters, and in some respects, it matters less than the federal appellate courts. We *might* have won the battle, but we've certainly lost the war.

[Strawman]

21. Why do you suppose they wanted to do this now?

As opposed to doing it during a SCOTUS nomination. I like our odds of stopping a horrible swing justice replacement to the SCOTUS under this deal alot more than I would under the nuclear option. They're going to have a harder time pulling off the nuclear option for a SCOTUS nominee than for a lower court nominee. Under the nuclear option they would have had all of the lower court nominees you mention and they wouldn't have to do anything other than line up 51 votes for an Ashcroft to replace an O'Connor on the SCOTUS. Now they will have the double challenge of pushing this through again along with a controversial nominee. On top of that at the end of the day, after all the back and forth retaliation was through. I really believe the legislative process in this country would have been permanently changed in a way that centralized power further in the hands of the majority. This deal is not perfect, but there is a net benefit over the alternative. Stopping this here and now was better than bringing on a losing battle.

[lastliberalintexas]

23. Because their leadership is apparently smarter than ours

Republicans have learned from their electoral political victories that the small, "unimportant" positions really do matter. Electorally, many republicans started at the school board or city council level and worked their way up and/or stayed at the local level to gain complete control. They've learned that those positions can actually impact our everyday lives more than the more glamorous, fame filled higher positions. Not that they don't go for both, but they pour far more resources and energy into the local level than we do.

Now apply that reasoning to the courts. District and appellate court judges hear far more cases which impact far more lives than the cases decided by the Supreme Court. Of course the SC is important- but so are the lower courts, and in many ways even more so. Because the SC has discretionary review of cases, there are many, many areas of the law in which circuit court opinions determine the law of the land. Owen, Brown and Pryor will shape the justice system for many years to come, and will be part of Bush's more lasting, lethal legacy.


And think about what the republicans have learned from this. they now know that we will back down even for lifetime appointments. They now know which republican Senators need to be worked over, and where their attack dogs need to go. They've also learned how the public views the battle, so they know how it needs to be reframed in the future. The next time that this comes up for a vote, they'll be even more prepared and will be able to ram through the nuclear option anyway.

If we'd forced their hands now, they likely would have lost because they weren't really that prepared. By many accounts, we actually had the votes to stop them. I don't want to have to count on having those same people when it's brought back up.

[tex-wyo-dem]

26. Bingo!

You are absolutely right, strawman!

Although the nuclear option has been big news on the blogs and to a certain extent in the print media, the whole issue has been largely glossed over by the broadcast MSM. As a result, only about 10% of the public was really even aware of the details. In other words, if the nuclear option had passed on these lower court nominees, it would have been below the radar of most of the people and future SCOTUS nominees would have breezed through.

Frist wanted this to go through now because he knew the only people really paying attention was his far right wing base who wanted this worse than he did, and who would give him their unqualified support had it been successful. Negative backlash from the more moderate wing of his party wasn't a big concern because most were simply not aware and not paying attention.

Now if he tries to pull the nuclear option during a SCOTUS nomination, the stakes will be a lot higher due to the much higher profile. The Rethugs will risk looking like the extremists and power abusers that they are.

[ComerPerro]

30. So lets see. The Republicans flex their muscles to kill the fillabuster

and then Bush appoints a line of radical, extreme right wing judges.

Shouldn't that make them look like the extremists and totalitarians that they are?

[Strawman]

35. It should have, but it wouldn't have

When the news came out I was in my car. On the radio there was a brief snippet about it on the top of the hour updates followed by a story about some people who were attacked by a couple chimps that got more airtime. I flipped the channels, surely public radio would break into normal programming with coverage of this deal I thought. Nope. Nada. I brought it up at my softball game to my best friend who is probably more aware than your average citizen, he knew nothing about it. Let them try to pull this when the stakes are about overturning Roe v. Wade. They will get to appoint some very shitty federal judges. That sucks. Unfortunately, the alternative would suck worse.

In a better world this would have been a big deal in the media and people would have cared more. We have some work to do to make that better world a reality. But in the real world on May 23, 2004, this was an acceptable compromise.

[KharmaTrain]

15. This Is Their Fight...We Just Help 'Em Along

I hope Frist doesn't honor it. And I'm still spoiling to not only shut down the Senate if Frist attempts to turn it into a rubber stamp for this regime, I'd say the Democrats don't even fill quorums and really shut this government down.

Let the county see what rule by fundie extremists like Frist is all about. Keep the light on them in the most harshest of colors possible. Make them appear as consitantly stubborn, not strong. Let them come off strident and irrelvent, not bold and determined. That's what is happening and to wish it to end is to work against our better long term interests.

We have a culture that accepts breaking rules and betraying allies. Television is loaded with series that revere outcasts and lack of personal responsibility. It thrives on self gratification and cheating to achieve that end.

Remember, this is a punt. We've stepped back from "the abyss" and nothing was resolved in that agreement other than not to have today's vote. Everything else is a fragile agreement purposely worded so anyone can find political cover.

For Frist and his ilk, breaking it might not be in their best interest right this moment...but now can be turned to a political weapon later.

[DefenseLawyer]

17. Without the 7, he doesn't have a choice but to honor it.

It's not about who is evil and untrustworthy, it's math. 55-7=48.

[gratuitous]

20. Ordinarily, in a contract

There are rights, responsibilities and remedies. If the Republicans welch on the deal (I know, hard to fathom, but just stick with me for a moment), what's the remedy? Jump up and down? Hold our collective breath until we turn blue? A +5 Sword of Righteous Retribution?

Who decides that a particular nominee is outrageous enough to filibuster? Particularly if the likes of Priscilla Owen isn't outrageous enough? "Well, you allowed a vote on Owen, why won't you allow a vote on David Duke? He's no worse that she is."

I'm trying, really, to be hopeful about this, but I just flat don't trust the Republicans any farther than I can throw the Washington Monument.

[Jacobin]

22. I think both sides blinked

I would like to have seen the nuclear option go down and have the Senate basically shut down until the wingnuts on the right got sick of not being able to get Smirk's agenda pushed forward.

Net result>>>>several dingbat judges get on the bench and no agreement about anything will be honored.

We lost. As usual.

[merh]

24. What makes you think the dems are going to honor it?

:shrug:

[Hugin]

31. I view it as yet another incremental loss to the RW.

My analysis may be flawed...

Yet, I'm wondering how many years of purgatory this 'deal' is
going to cost me or which of my first born to sign over.

It's yet another attempt by DINOs to compromise with those
who will not compromise.

I thought appeasement went out with Neville Chamberlain.

Just in case I'm being too obscure with my references... I
see this as yet another in a long series of compromises made
by so-called Democratic leadership which is gradually diluting
what makes America great.

[Armstead]

32. I think it depends on the integrity of the specific Republicans

I would agree with you completely if this were an agreement with Bush and/or the Bully Right of the Republican Party. But my sense is that the Republicans who participated are also sick of the tactics of the Radical Right of the Republican Party and were sending them a message.

In some ways, we're dealing with two Republican Parties. One is this new beast that is totally unscrupulous and power-mad. And the other is what's left from the old-fashioned moderate conservative Republicans. Whether the moderates can stand up to the radical bullies is the question.

[Cleita]

33. You are so right and there were those of us

here at DU that wrote to our Senators asking them not to compromise because of their history of not honoring their words. However, now the soup has been cooked and further heat would burn it.

I feel that our Democratic Senators are trying to protect our Constitution and the Democratic process. They are still trying to work within the system, however, futile it seems to outsiders like myself.

I hope they are right and that I am wrong for a change.