In what universe is this a "victory" for the Democrats?

[nonconformist]

Sincerely, I'd love for someone to explain it to me because I don't see it. All arguments that I have seen for this being good for Democrats have seemed shallow, weak, marginal, naively optimistic and frankly ignoring the larger picture.

We gave them justices we were fundamentally opposed to because 95% of Bush's nominees being appointed just wasn't enough power for them. We failed to use the filibuster when we had strong legitimate reasons to do so - and were ethically bound to do so - because we buckled under threats. The PR war was really ours to lose in this whole mess. This was no compromise, unless by "compromise" you mean "relenting in fear". They threatened to smack us, and when we complained they threatened to punch us in the face... so we decided that as a compromise we'd allow them to smack us and reserve the option to punch us in the future if we get in the way again as determined by subjective framing ("extraordinary circumstances"). We're celebrating the fact that we managed to *only* get smacked. Yay?

Some might argue these are just appellate court judges, and that the Democrats will "step up when it's important". Good grief, how important does it have to get? Or the better question, how much of a tantrum must be thrown and how big must the threats be before we decide to pass and save our wad for something more "important"? Because the way some Democrats talk these days, we only have one hand to play so we have to save it for the most important issue EVER. Which will be... damned if I know. Our standards seem to be getting higher by the day when attempting to define the mythical ultimate important issue we'll fight for. This was an EXCELLENT opportunity to take a strong and clear stand, and not just limited to the issues with the justices but on principal. Ahh, principal... what a novel concept. I seem to recall a little deal a couple of years ago when some Democrats failed to stand on principal and instead got bogged down in the details, thinking that appeasement was a way to tie hands in the future because that moment wasn't the proper time to take a strong opposing stand. That worked out well you'll note.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a "woe is me, everything has to be perfect and nothing is ever enough" kind of person. Not by far. I've often said one of our biggest problems is our failure to pick our battles wisely. I lean pretty far left, but I'm no radical leftist "burn it down to save it" or single issue voter. I'm a lifelong yellow dog Dem. But even *I'm* starting to get pissed off, so make of that what you will. Maybe it's the barrage of shitty legislation the Democrats have been helping to pass that is making me so cynical. Maybe it's because I actually expect the opposition party to occasionally, I dunno, OPPOSE things that aren't prepackaged in a tidy slam-dunk no-risk PR victory. Stand for something or stand for nothing indeed.

So how in the hell is this good for Democrats or democracy in general? Did the 50% that don't prescribe to fascist, neocon or radical fundie views get a voice? Were their interests put first? Are they EVER? Did we take a stand and call them on a blatant, desperate, bratty kid move for ultimate power? Did we force their hand, did we call their bluff? No, we didn't... they called OUR bluff. Seems to me it was a way for the Republicans to exert dictatorial unchallenged power while avoiding a controversial mess which would have made their motives abundantly clear to the people. And lucky them, they didn't even have to risk a big split and possible implosion in the Republican party to make it happen. In other words, all of the benefits without the PR headache.

They didn't have to go nuclear to kill the filibuster - it's DEAD people, DEAD. It should have been implemented and we didn't do it for FEAR they'd kill it. If we won't use it when it needs to be used, when we have a responsibility to use it, how is it not dead? If the Democrats ever regain power, do you think the Republicans will hesitate to use it if they feel it's warranted? The Democrats have PROVEN they will not only hesitate but will fail to use it altogether. That is one icky precedent any way you slice it. And what happens the next time? How gunshy will we be? What happens when SCOTUS justices need to be replaced? Threats again? A reevaluation of what is "important" and "worthy" of fighting against? A wave of apologists crying, "what do you expect them to do?" Justifications so weak and pathetic that they almost read as a parody yet they're painfully serious? It's very premature to say that we saved the future of Roe vs. Wade because it's impossible to say anymore what they'll deem WORTHY enough to fight, really fight, uphill tooth-and-nail fight, against. Then we'll hear that "on controversial matters of abortion, we are going to have to compromise". Hell, we're already hearing that type of rhetoric! And what side will win THAT PR war? Think about it. We'll allow the Republicans to frame the debate, something-or-other about gay marriage will be mentioned, a handful of moderate Dems will jump ship and there you have it. Then cue the apologists, claiming this will gain us votes - especially with the Catholics! Dream on.

We can high-five ourselves over Frist all we want, but do remember that he was already marginalized over the Schiavo mess. And frankly, because it needs to be said, what principals do you have that are worth compromising to embarrass individual radicals when knowing that in the end their loyalty is finite and another will rise in his place (just less "in your face", meaning more electable)? And really, that's the big thing isn't it? Because if you haven't learned that they will fall into lockstep like good little soldiers when they are supposed to - both the voters and the congressional/senate Republicans - you are being naive. If I had a quarter for every time I've read about something being a "smoking gun" or "nail in the coffin" here over the past couple of years I'd be in Cancun right now. And even when we manage to get a handful of Republicans over to our side, there always seems to be just enough turncoat Democrats to negate them. ANWR, anyone?

We saved the filibuster by giving them what they want. Some call that a victory. I call that caving and postponing what is an inevitable showdown. Some may think that this is a showdown to be avoided at ALL costs - but if that is really what you think, then it's clear who has the upper hand here. The future use and implementation of the filibuster remains to be seen. The best indicator of that is to look at past decisions and what issues they're willing to fight against, the issues they're willing to compromise on and the issues they're actually willing to shockingly throw errant (but enough) support behind. It's grim, really. I know well what the Republicans are capable of and I know that the Democrats have been causing me to pick my jaw up off the floor far too often. I can try to be optimistic all I want, and I'm really trying here, but it is what it is and it doesn't exactly give me the warm and fuzzies.

[goodboy]

1. I think the Dems should've forced the 'nukular' option, and shut down

the senate. That would've shown the American people the true nature of the pukes.

just my .02

[ultraist]

13. I agree

We may have won if they had an actual showdown and there would have been big repercussions for the Repuke radicals. Instead, we are left with at least three radical judges and a swing to the right.

There are no guarantees that they will not threaten the nuke option when it comes time to appoint a SCOTUS Justice.

snips
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/24/politics/24cnd-judge.html?hp&ex=1116993600&en=bc6f87011187a779&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Compromise Reached

"Leaders of some interest groups that had been deeply involved in the fight, seeing it as a proxy battle for a future Supreme Court vacancy, were clearly unhappy with the deal."

"While we had no interest in seeing the Senate break down, we are very disappointed with the decision to move these extremist nominees one step closer to confirmation," said Nan Aron, head of the Alliance for Justice, a liberal group.

"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," said Senator Mike DeWine, Republican of Ohio, another lawmaker instrumental in the compromise.

The Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, who had vowed to invoke what some have called the nuclear option to do away with judicial filibusters, said the agreement "has some good news, it has some disappointing news, and will require careful monitoring." He said "bad faith and bad behavior" would force him to bring back the nuclear option. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the No. 2 Republican, said, "The way I read it, all options are still available with the timing to be determined."

[Hugin]

2. One last time I'll say...

Didn't anyone learn anything from Neville Chamberlain?

Appeasement with the power mad only postpones the inevitable.
May even make it worse.

[benburch]

3. Only in the sense that Dunkirk was a victory for the British.

We had only PART of our ass handed to us.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

7. Well, who won THAT one in the END? (nt)

[Hugin]

15. The fight has to start someplace...

for an end to come.

Rolling over like a rotted log is no compromise.

[benburch]

24. The Americans.

Honestly, had Britain been alone, it would have fallen.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

33. Hmmm. Interesting conclusions if you keep following the analogy. (nt)

[reprobate]

65. Maybe, but I doubt it.

Before the Battle of Britain, Hitler had thousands of barges ready to be filled to invade England in Operation Sealion. By the end of the Battle of Britain, Germany had its Luftwaffe so decemated that Hitler called off the ivasion ov England and instead turned around and invaded Russia.

That was his bid mistake. He thought he was a better gereral than Napolian, but made the same errors that napolian did. The russian winter got them both.

America's en try into the war certainly did spell the end for the third reich, and it was the tipping point that brought his downfall, but if he had not turned his back on the invasion of england, which, many now think would have been successful, all ov europe would have been under german control. He would have been able to take russia at his liesure.


And remember that he would then have controlled the atlantic sea lanes, so we would then have been in danger. He also had a long range, four engine bomber coming online that was capable of a returen trip to new york or wasington, sso the big pond was no longer going to protect us.

No, Ben, Britain was alone, it did not fall, and that's why we still speak english today and not german.

History is fascinating if you learn all the little things that contribute to it. It was Hitler's impatience with not being able to launch Operation Sealion on time that saved Enland Europe, and the United States. Don't fall into the trap the the United States is the answer to everything. We too are fallable and certainly open to the esigencies of history.

[vi5]

4. Thank you...I agree 100% and you stated this quite nicely....

I'm probably closer to being a centrist than I am a far left member of the democratic party. And I'm far from a "the sky is falling" chicken little pessimist. And I fail to see how we gained anything in this deal.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. WoW!

You said it!

[iamjoy]

6. This Is How Liberty Dies

to thunderous applause.

Maybe in a galaxy far, far away this is a victory for Dems.

[mcctatas]

8. Look at the long term picture though

They needed to preserve the fillibuster for supreme court appointees...forcing Frists hand now would have been cutting off their nose to spite their face. Plus Frist lost points witht the fundies, looked impotent to some moderate republicans, and just generally came off as a douche!

[LondonReign2]

12. They didn't preserve the filibuster

Theyv'e basically agreed never to use it! And, the Republicans can still nuke it whenever they want. What victory, exactly, the the Democrats get?

This compromise was utter crap, unless by compromise you mean, "republicans get the judges they want and the dems agree never to filibuster"

[ultraist]

28. They didn't "preserve the filibuster" for SCOTUS nominations!

Did you read Frist and DeWine's statements? Futhermore, consider the new bar Dems agreed to: "extraordinary circumstance."

Bush will bring in another extremist conservative when Rehnquist kicks and we will be screwed, yet again! They will claim a filibuster is not warranted as the nominee doesn't rise to the vague, undefined "extraordinary circumstance" bar and when that does't work: :nuke:

I'm surprised there are some DUers that actually trust the Republicans.

[LondonReign2]

37. Exactly right

"Extraordinary circumstances" is a killer. No matter what wacko put forth, the RW has framed the arguement so that the Dems will now look like extremeists. The Dems effectively agreed to neuter themselves and never use a filibuster.

Further, the RW will simply put forth a *slightly* less extremist for any SCOTUS opening, someone in the mold of Chimpy's favorite, Scalia. The nomination will sail through.

[ultraist]

43. Good point!

The precedent has been set. Bush will select a nominee who is slightly less insane than Owen and claim that since the nominee is LESS conservative than the ones Dems agreed to, a filibuster is not warranted.

If they Dems try to show "extraordinary circumstance" they will be framed as extremists who have violated the deal. Once the deal is null and void, they will threaten the nuke option and we are back at square one. What a DEAL!

[atreides1]

32. Only under "Extraordinary Circumstances", can they filibuster.

They can only filibuster in the case of extraordinary circumstances,
and Dobson doesn't blame Frist, he's already blaming the Repubs and
the Dems who came up with this "deal".

So Frist didn't lose any fundie support, but now the fundies will
concentrate on those Repubs that were part of this deal, and try to
make sure that they lose in their re-election bids.

By the way they never defined what an "extraordinary circumstnce" was.

So, once again, what were the long term gains about this deal?

[ultraist]

44. If Owen doesn't meet "extraordinary circumstance" WTF does?

:crazy:

[nonconformist]

77. That's the million dollar question! nt

[mcctatas]

Well thanks for raining on my parade...

Maybe it wasn't a victory per se, but it did give them breathing room, some repubs did stand up to the radical right, and it does further fracture the real republicans from the religious right... (maybe at least? she thought hopefully despite having her parade rained on):shrug:

[chalky]

78. The Filibuster is now officially like my grandma's sofa--

covered with a thick squeaky plastic cover to preserve it for "special company".

Of course, grandma never defined who that "special company" was--apparently it wasn't the pastor, or granddad's boss, or even the
mourners from Granddad's funeral. No, that "special company" never came and that sofa was thrown out years ago--still safely wrapped in its protective plastic coating.

[napi21]

9. It's a victory becaue extremists on both sides lost!

It's always a bad thing to loose power, and the fillabuster does give power to the minority. We lost a little, but so did the Pubs. I think the biggest looser was Frist! He steaked his ability to weild power on this one issue and HE lost. The extreme RW are really pissed at him right now! That's a win for the Dems.

[LondonReign2]

14. Please tell me what the Republicans lost?

Their judges? yeah, three of the most extreme, which they'll replace with three more extreme picks...which the dems agree not to filibuster.

The nuclear option? No, because if the dems filibuster, they've still invoke it.

The Repubs lose absolutely nothing on this deal.

[callous taoboy]

16. I agree, Napi:

If we lost the filibuster we'd have hell to pay later. Plus, in 2006 we will be able to use Frist's "nuclear option" BS against the Mepublicans in a big way. Frist and the Fristians come off looking like the assholes that they are now AND in 2006.

I also love Byrd's "advice and consent" rule.

[callous taoboy]

20. Plus-

Our plan B, to slow down the senate business, would have been a far worse move. Remember Newty?

[SmokingJacket]

26. The RW is way, way, way more extreme.

Frist is a crazy puppet that got knocked down. I'm beginning to wonder if he wasn't set up. I mean, who the HELL is he? He isn't like the center of RW power or anything -- I don't know if I'd ever even heard of him a year ago.

Sure, I'm glad they're all mad at him... but ultimately, what does that mean?

[meganmonkey]

38. Trying to preserve checks and balances is extremist?

The whole continuum has shifted so far to the right. 95% of the judge appointments of the majority party isn't good enough for them, the repubs represent AT BEST 51% of the population and I'M the extremist for wanting to preserve the filibuster, to safeguard against the tyranny of the majority?

I'm with the OP on this one. So we can use the filibuster in 'extreme circumstances' - if these judges don't fit that criteria I don't know what will. In bush's first term, these were among the very few judges who got blocked. So he RE-NOMINATES THE SAME ONES?! That is extreme. I am appalled by this whole thing. And like the OP I am not a pessimist, I am a silver-lining kinda gal. The only silver lining I see in this is the RWers freaking out. It's kinda funny.

[nonconformist]

67. The hell with Frist

Everyone is so eager to jump on the 'point and laugh' bandwagon they're losing site of what is really going on here. Frist's pain makes me smile, but that's MARGINAL at best. At best.

They're getting their three terrible judges. They're framing the litmus test for using the filibuster in subjective terms. The nuclear option is still on the table. We're scared to use the filibuster even when it really needs to be used. We had the solid support of the American people on this and had the upper hand in a PR battle.

This isn't about extremists on the left or reactionary hand-wringing. This is about historical precedent, this about facts, this is about looking at the bigger picture and not getting bogged down in the details. So what's more logical? Assuming the Republicans will continue their ways as they have for years and assuming the Democrats will carry on in the same way they have for years.... or imagining a big rainbow with hearts and pretty flowers full of optimism and (unprecedented) viable hope with a side of Frist mocking? I'm going with logic. That doesn't make me a cynic, it makes me a realist. You can only get pissed on so many times before you start ducking under shelter.

[Al-CIAda]

10. Add this to the LONG list of capitulation. THIS weakness is part of why

we lose. The perception is we are weak. The reality is we are weak.

You want lines in the sand? My line was MILES back. This trail of marks on the groung is a railroad track to hell.

[Hugin]

18. Yeah...

You can tell where my line was drawn by following my
finger nail marks as I've been dragged along by the
appeasers.

[LightningFlash]

11. Because frankly, in the larger picture....

This is more than a better agreement since Senator Frist has lost his popular opinion ability to remove the filibuster, and his polls are in the tank.

You need to look at everything involved, these judges were not even confirmed. They were simply allowed to go through as an up or down vote and debates will follow on all of them.

Plus, these votes are restricted to the circuit appellate courts and they are not for the Supreme Courts. It's a victory because many republicans have gone against the lockstep party line. Owen could still be confirmed, but it won't be for the highest court.

And they are not going to buckle down on debate when its clear how extreme these judges are. The senate was not shutdown, this is an important fact everyone must forever remember.

[lastliberalintexas]

19. Oy- you don't understand the judicial system, do you?

You really think that an appointment to the lower courts is any better than one to the SC? District and appellate court judges usually have far more impact than any single SC justice, as their opinions tend not to ever be reviewed by the SC. These 3- and the 200 or so other Bush nominees- will be able to do plenty of damage even in those "unimportant" lower court positions.

And they'll still use the nuclear option when it comes to the SC anyway. We won absolutely nothing- Corporate America did.

[LightningFlash]

29. No no, that isn't what I'm saying.

I'm saying debates on the rationality of these judges are now going to be a forced issue, because many democrats and republicans had the spine to force this problem with the nominations out into the public.

You always win some and lose some with a case like this, but the difference is there is actual qualifiers in place to scrutinize the up and down votes of ANY judge or appointment.

In addition, Frist will not be using the nuclear option and republicans have stopped his ability to do so.

I won't say that Frist has lost this ability, but he will not try it again and is not allowed to except under certain circumstances.

In addition the agreement outlines no one is allowed to filibuster certain persons except under extreme circumstances, and that goes for both sides.

[LondonReign2]

23. Frist did not lose the ability to end the filibuster!

The dems agreed not to use (except in "extreme situations"...what the hell is that?) If the dems DO try to use it, they'll threaten the nuclear option once again, claiming the dems have broken the agreement.

And do you really think the Repubs are going to vote down any of these judges?

[LightningFlash]

34. Frist has enough PR problems he won't use it, that's the point.

And my original point about the courts is according to the agreement, they are all supposed to debate those three court appointees properly. Frankly it makes no difference who says who wins. Both sides did lose quite a bit, but in the end this stops an extreme takeover in the government. That's something everyone was hoping for and many republicans are not lock-stepping in line.

[LondonReign2]

50. I disagree

It doesn't stop an extreme takeover one whit. So the repubs lose three nominees; they'll simply nominate three more extremists.

And any openings on the SCOTUS will be slightly less extreme, denying the dems the "extraordinary circumstances" excuse.

Look for more Scalias to be nominated.

[LightningFlash]

58. We'll soon see, won't we?

But the point is, the Senate is not going to be shutdown and debate will not end along with democracy.

[nonconformist]

70. Shutting down the Senate to prevent usurped power

would have BEEN democracy. The very definition of democracy.

What did occur can only be described as superficial politics made for television. Light on substance and all is not what it seems.

[nonconformist]

35. They didn't lose the option to go nuclear

That's still on the table, framed subjectively on "trust". Jah. Fast forward to SCOTUS nominations. Cue us freaking the hell out over the choice. We (possibly, maybe) attempt to filibuster. Oh no! Republicans don't think the circumstances are quite extraordinary enough. We're back where we started. What do we do? I wish I knew, but I'm willing to call a spade a spade.

Up/down votes virtually guarantees those judges will be confirmed. We can scream until we're horse and debate for DAYS, but lockstep they will come marching when it comes time to vote.

Even if you've only been paying marginal attention, this is abundantly clear.

[LightningFlash]

39. He did lose it, in the PR windfall...

Frist could likely try to use the option again at some point but, it is not going to be easily done and he is the only Senator with full authority to use it.

And frankly this was a lose-lose situation for both sides. Clearly, there was a loss for both. But the difference is debate and scrutiny on the judges will press forward, and republicans are not automatically lock-stepping in line with Mr. Frist.

[nonconformist]

45. Frist NEVER had the PR upper hand

The public has been solidly against going nuclear. Apparently, PR matters not.

Let's not be naive here. Fool me once, shame on... aww hell, you know.

[LightningFlash]

48. PR in congress, that's what I'm really coming back to....n.t

[LondonReign2]

51. Bull

"Debate and scutiny" get us what exactly?

In the end, we can have all the denate and scutiny we wnat, and the Repubs WILL vote in lockstep to confirm whatever hideous nominee is put forth.

[ultraist]

41. Frist has not lost his ability to remove the filibuster

He can simply claim that the Democrats have broken the agreement.


edit to add: In the PR windfall? His fundie base is furious! They want him to keep fighting for it and would support him in bringing it back.

[LightningFlash]

46. Not without the support of all the centrist Senators...

All of them, who also discussed this compromise remain opposed to the nuclear option meaning Democrats have 49 votes to bar it...Two undecideds still in the breaking.

Frist would need many republicans and democrats to agree with what he is doing, to ever invoke the option. While he still thinks that he can remove the filibuster, the opposition in Congress to his agenda puts that option to bed.

I do not think all of the appointees will be approved. I belive that, *ENOUGH* republicans and otherwise both, have woken up to the history of some of these appointees and that some of them will not in any instance be confirmed.

I think the SCOTUS will be up for debate. Whether supreme court or not, whoever the person is that is appointed will be debated so I would not call this a true loss, in light of the fact that it is not a true victory.

No matter what, the centrist senators are making the rules in this body and what they call for is FULL debate and discussion. The extreme left and extreme right don't want that.

[Internut]

52. I think you're misunderstanding something

Let me put it this way:

* The Democratic senators in the group agreed that they would only support filibusters in "extraoridnary circumstances".

* In order for the agreement to hold, the Republican senators in the group have to agree with the Democratic senators that the circumstances are, in fact, "extraordinary". That is, they think the candidate is extreme enough that the filibuster is warranted.

* If these 7 Republicans agree that the candidate is "extreme", they would not vote for him/her, so the filibuster is not needed anyway.

Conclusion: the filibuster is dead and the seven Republicans hold all the cards.

[OilemFirchen]

55. Perhaps, but...

... in that event, the nuke option would be triggered again.

If, as I'm reading, the public is agin' it, how does that hurt the Dems?

[LightningFlash]

59. Again, I did not misread it.

Those 7 centrist republicans have to agree with those 7 centrist democrats. It's a TWO way compromise, one where both sides are forced to press the issue.

And in that way while they do lose, so do the extremist republicans who are splintering the group apart.

Either way it's actually a good thing, because they are NOT lock-stepping line. There is a civil war and much unrest in republican congress. You will likely see many dissenting votes which do not go along with Frist's agenda, and before that, it was Frist running the show.

[Internut]

60. The public was against it before, did it stop

the Republicans?

As I said, we're back to where we were before, except for two things:

We did not have the "extraordinary circumstances" criterion to meet, - now we do

We did not have Owen and Brown as the yardstick against which the "extraoridnary circumstances" will be measured. Now we do.

Tell me again how we "won"?

[smoogatz]

17. Feel better?

The big prize here is the SCOTUS, obviously. Bush will most likely get to make two, possibly three SCOTUS appointments before the fat lady sings. If the filibuster had been eliminated, Bush could (and would) stack the court with hard-right reconstructionists who would roll back everything from the voting rights act to Roe V. Wade to the forty hour work week. What the deal gives us is a major rhetorical concession--the Republicans have now admitted that the filibuster is a legitimate legislative tool. For that they get three up or down votes on hilariously bad judges, whose every majority decision will be overturned by higher courts. What they don't get is time travel back to 1937, or any other part of their agenda. Not bad, considering we control exactly zero branches of the federal government right now.

[nonconformist]

49. Nope. nt

[ultraist]

57. Bush will possibly make THREE SCOTUS appointments?

To replace WHO? Bush will likely make ONE SCOTUS appointment to replace Rehnquist .

Chances are, he will select someone slightly less conservative than Owen, who doesn't meet their criteria of "extraordinary circumstance," thus, no filibuster. We will get stuck with yet another radical conservative judge. Frankly, I'm not too worried about Roe. It would take at least two extremely conservative radical Justices to overturn it.

Many legal scholars posit that even Rehnquist wouldn't overturn Roe. Overturn the Voting Rights Act? That was not a USSC ruling. It was a Legislative Act. Your argument is over the top and lacks facts. Sorry, nothing personal.

[smoogatz]

62. Rehnquist, Stevens and O'Connor are all over 75

Rehnquist is ill, as we all know. O'Connor has said she'd like to retire. Stevens is hated by the far right. Three is possible--two is likely.

You're also confused about what the SCOTUS does--it reviews state and federal legislation all the time, and is the ultimate appellate authority in those cases. See Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

[smoogatz]

68. I should also point out

that you kind of make my point for me. Someone "slightly less conservative than Owen" would be a lot like Rehnquist or O'Connor. That would be a clear victory for the voices of moderation, compared to the worst case scenario that would be inevitable if the filibuster had been killed. I assume the Democrats would filibuster the tar out of another Scalia or Thomas--that will be the real fight.

[Ysolde]

21. So Perfect!

Well, said! I couldn't agree with you more.

Why does the vast, unwashed public think the Dems don't stand for anything? Because, when push comes to shove, our Leadership doesn't. There is no way to call this a victory for us. With only 10 of his nominees not confirmed, and over 60 of Clinton's, we should have continued to stand our ground. And, asked why that statistic was NEVER mentioned. I don't know how many times on NPR I heard items about the nuclear option and I NEVER heard that number.

The only way to make the public realize what they voted for and wake up is to stand our ground and make the ReThugs use their dirty tricks in full daylight. And, ultimately, make the government shutdown on their shoulders. They were the ones who didn't give an up or down vote to over 60 of Clinton's nominees. The Dems had been MORE THAN FAIR. We should have shouted that to the winds and not caved.

:mad:

[FreedomAngel82]

22. I'm with you

This was anything but a victory.

[OilemFirchen]

25. How can it NOT be a victory?

When the majority party, with a clear margin of victory and a 24/7 echo chamber of dogmatic support, capitulates, no matter how minor, the minority has won.

Notwithstanding that the compromise actually favors the minority (and all future minorites) by retaining, for the time being, a minority weapon.

[LondonReign2]

40. You'll remember that the public was against the nuclear option

Despite the echo chamber, the public was solidly with the dems on this issue. But, we decided to punt the advantage away.

Do you really think the RW will hestitate to use the nuclear option whenever they see fit? Do you really think they'll nominate any less extreme judges? No, now that the issue is "over" in the public mind, ANY attempt to block further nominees will be viewed negatively. "Wasn't this already decided?" the ill-informed public will ask.

[OilemFirchen]

47. Do you really think that the public's interest mattered?

Of those surveyed, a kinda uncovincing majority were opposed to the nuke option, while a similarly unconvincing majority supported up-or-down votes. Most importantly, the vast majority of the public was wholly unaware, unconcerned, and/or disinterested in the process.

This was not the Dems' Waterloo and a compromise could only help them.

I have no doubt that the wingers will light the fuse again, but, as I've observed elesewhere, this time there are seven puggies on record as being, at least, tacitly opposed to the option. That may not mean much, but it does change the dynamics and, most importantly, demoralizs the wacko base.

As to how the ill-informed public will see a Dem filibuster, should it ever happen, no one really knows. They could just as easily be convinced that the puggies broke their good-faith deal.

[keithjx]

27. I'm still working my way through this.

I agree with much of what you said, but I don't think this is quite the loss you make it out to be, either. I think the tacticians in BOTH parties are looking much further down the road than we give them credit for. People like Byrd have probably learned a few things by being in the Senate for 50 years.

One of them is this: this fight for the filibuster was never really about the appellate nominees anyway. Yeah, the appointees of Bush SUCK. Many of them have no business being on the court in my opinion. The repug's brought Owens and Johnson to the table because it's much easier to defend two women (one of whom is a minority) than two old white guys (whom the dems retained the filibuster right on). But, again, the appellate nominees aren't the real fight. If they were, Bush wouldn't have the 95% approval he has on his judicial nominees (though that percentage does drop when solely considering appellate nominees).

It's about the Supreme Court. That is a big enchilada, and having two or three openings there is a really big deal. Remember, these are politicians trying to get their party in power in 2006, 2008, etc. They have a much longer view than one, three, five appellate judges today. The results of the compromise DO reveal Frist as a whiner and shakes up the far right base. When the next battle happens, it will be framed differently due to this compromise. It will show Frist, et al., as more unreasonable than this battle did. The potential for a schism w/in the repugs will increase, increasing the likelihood of Dem victories in 06, 08, etc.

Like I said, I'm still working this out. But I don't think the war is close to lost or over. And a victorious battle isn't always measured in the most obvious ways.

My thoughts, anyway.
KJ

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

The same universe that Hitler was in when he surrounded Stalingrad.

Goebbels trumpeted that as a "great victory" too.

[Individualist]

30. The DLC universe

Whenever Lieberman is involved, you can be sure it's something good for the repugs.

[Dogmudgeon]

31. This is how --

The Radical Right were hankering for this fight, especially since they could get to blame it on the Democratic Left (and everything is the Democratic Left to those fools).

None of the Democrats really wanted it, since if they lost, it would have been a crushing loss to the minority party.

When the compromise happened, progressive onlookers (like a lot of us at DU) grumbled and bitched, but the Freeper crowd, so close to the boiling point, finally foamed over, and are now angrily blaming everyone in their own camp they can find of "treason!"

The Democratic "compromisers" set the Radical GOP Right off like a pack of last-year's firecrackers. Frist emerged bloodied and soiled for his presumptive 2008 White House run. The hard-ass GOP faction (including everybody's blow-dried Lieutenent Savior, Rick Santorum) has less power and less moral cache. The GOP won't get all ten of those judgeships. And the Democrats got the Republicans to conceed that they could still use the filibuster if the selection was too radically conservative.

The downside? Well, they still get 5-8 judgeships. It also allows Lieberman to collect some electoral brownie points. But overall, I think the Republican Party snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory, and will be leaving the floor of the senate slick with their own blood.

In other words, the Republican leadership tripped over their own line in the sand for a promise no more iron-clad than "we promise we won't use the filibuster unless we really, really have to."

--p!

[understandinglife]

36. Well stated. Yesterday was a "Neville Chamberlain" memorial event;

another dashingly well-done toss of a shovel of dirt onto 'America's casket.'

The Bu$h neoconster regime gets what it wants and the moment any minority member calls 'extraordinary circumstance' the majority leader will call 'bad faith and bad behavior' and a dump truck will finish burying the casket.

Re: Frist - 'bad faith and bad behavior' - see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/24/politics/24cnd-judge.html?hp&ex=1116993600&en=bc6f87011187a779&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Peace.


We need an Opposition Party if we are ever to restore "America"

[ooglymoogly]

42. yes you are sooooooooooo right

and a big kick and nominatorial (to coin a word) punch

[wiggs]

53. Same universe in which...

Dems voting to certify Ohio electoral votes is a victory because a few of them voted not to certify.

If one or more judicial candidates fail to be confirmed, then the deal is a victory.

[Jose Diablo]

54. In the DLC universe

It's to the corporate advantage to 'keep business as usual' flowing.

Now please, don't upset the choir singing praises for all of this saving of the Republic. They may, gasp, call you a left extremist. You know, someone that isn't one of us, the moderates, the better part of the Democrat party. The ones best able to lead us to VICTORY.

[mzmolly]

56. In the Moveon Universe, The Dobson Universe, The NARAL Universe

and then some.

[ultraist]

61. "The fight is more intense" NARAL statement

It doesn't sound like NARAL considers this a victory. Nor does the Alliance for Justice group. Their leaders stated they are disappointed with the deal.

http://prochoiceaction.org/campaign/sen_nucleardeal_052305

Keep the Pressure on to Stop Brown, Owen and Pryor

The nuclear option disaster has been avoided, but the fight for fair and independent judges is getting even more intense. Monday evening, a bipartisan group of senators reached an agreement that takes the nuclear option off the table but allows for simple majority votes on three of President Bush's absolute worst nominees: William Pryor, Priscilla Owen, and Janice Rogers Brown.

We need your help to win this next fight - keep the pressure on the Senate in opposition to these three anti-choice nominees. If we are to stop Owen, Brown or Pryor, we need pro-choice Republicans to join the pro-choice Democrats in opposing these far-right nominees. Take action immediately.

*****
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/24/politics/24cnd-judge....

Compromise Reached

"Leaders of some interest groups that had been deeply involved in the fight, seeing it as a proxy battle for a future Supreme Court vacancy, were clearly unhappy with the deal."

"While we had no interest in seeing the Senate break down, we are very disappointed with the decision to move these extremist nominees one step closer to confirmation," said Nan Aron, head of the Alliance for Justice, a liberal group.

****
So, it was a slight loss for the INSANE Dobson Klan. Is that where our goal post is? Off the edge of the right?

[LightningFlash]

63. Like I said, a double loss can be a win...

A double loss on both sides can lead to a win, when there is a clear split down the senate and now the Republican leadership has gotten into in-fighting.

[mzmolly]

64. ".. the nuclear option *DISASTER* has been avoided!" EMAIL FROM NARAL

As a member of NARAL, I received this email today:

Because of your efforts over the past weeks, the nuclear option disaster has been avoided!

...

CAN activists have sent 245,258 emails to senators, and helped keep the filibuster alive -- especially for potential Supreme Court nominations coming in the next few months...

No one believes the battle is OVER, but we were within a hair of losing it all, the larger battle was won. However, the fight definitely continues.

As you noted, NARAL is now focusing on the 3 judges in question. Thankfully we MAINTAIN the option to do that. I shall assist NARAL in their continuted efforts.

One thing at a time...

We could have ended up with 10 Judges as Will Pitt pointed out and lost our filibuster rights. That nearly happened.

[mzmolly]

66. One more very key point:

Had the Democrats used their filibuster powers again to stop Owen, Frist would have sought a ruling from the chair, approvable by a simple majority, that filibusters should not be allowed to obstruct judicial nominations. Vice President Dick Cheney, as president of the Senate, was prepared to take the chair Tuesday to break a tie vote.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050524/ap_on_go_co/filibuster_fight_11

[AuntiBush]

71. And the World would have seen FACISM at it's WORSE!

Maybe it would have taken just "that" to wake many American's up.

[nonconformist]

69. We could have, but we will never know

Because we slinked away with our tails between our legs even WITH strong public support.

All this happiness over the filibuster still being available for SCOTUS nominations is not addressing the big issue - which is the fact that they've framed when we can use the filibuster in incredibly subjective terms and can STILL go nuclear if they chose to do so. We're relying on TRUST with the Republicans to make sure this doesn't explode. I for one am not naive enough to put my eggs in that basket.

The nuclear option disaster has not be avoided. It's been postponed. For all intents and purposes, a small nuclear disaster happened quietly under-the-radar cloaked in the most uneven "compromise" I've ever seen. This is textbook neocon shit! This is why it was important to force their hand. We seriously had nothing to lose and a whole LOT to gain by doing so. Bush will get his SCOTUS nomination, mark my words. He's in a better position to get it now than he was before the compromise - because now we're scared to use the filibuster and if we do use it all they have to do is define it as not being "extraordinary" enough and go nuclear anyway. We'll see if the PR battle falls on our side that time, though.

[mzmolly]

72. But we could have lost it all. I guess I agree with Dean in the end

"I would be hesitant to say yet that it's a win for the Democratic Party," he said. "It's a real test of whether this is a real long-term agreement. That will come when we find out if the president consults with the Democrats," he added.


....


In his interview with the AP, Dean said the accord "was a huge loss for the right wing... It was clearly a loss for the president because he was getting accustomed to ramming things through the House and the Senate without any confrontation. It was a win for America because minority rights were supported."

[nonconformist]

73. We're compromising ourselves into oblivion

And while I love Dean, I do disagree with him on this. Minority rights were only supported superficially. We kept the filibuster, but they've framed it so that they can tell us when we can and cannot use it and they can go nuclear still if we push it. Bush is still getting what he wants, maybe even easier now. You know how you sometimes give small kids the illusion of power to placate them, but really you're holding all the cards? Amazingly, the Democrats are the kids in that scenario even though the Republicans have been acting like spoiled little brats.

So.typical.

We came out a loser on this anyway, we might as well have forced them to do their dirty work out in the open on live TV for a change.

I honestly don't have enough faith in the Democrats to fight tooth-and-nail against a "Mow Down Whomever You Chose With A Machine Gun" bill these days though, because there is surely some other issue out there more worthy of fighting for. :sarcasm:

[mzmolly]

74. But how long should we have shut down the Senate with kids at war?

:shrug:

And they can't tell us when to use the FB, we retain total discretion. All Frist can do is threaten, and he doesn't have the votes any longer.

I think Dean is right in that only time will tell?

[nonconformist]

75. He never had the votes and we failed to call the bluff

And they do have discretion, because they've framed it as something that can only be used in "extraordinary circumstances". If they don't agree, the nuclear option goes back on the table.

They still hold the cards. Hoping for the best but past actions and logic tells me this was a bad idea.

[mzmolly]

76. Judging from his face, I think he had the votes and we stopped this deal.

I guess it's all a matter of opinion. He was too upset IMHO not to have lost something.

As for that Nuke option, I don't like that, but these people have agreed to work together and judging from what happened this time, I think they will? And, the agreement specifically states it is OUR discretion, which will be hard to dispute later me thinks?

As Dean said though "only time will tell ey?"

[understandinglife]

79. It's a fristian neoconster universe and will remain so until we "RAP it!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3723336

Peace.


Let's RAP!

[kaitykaity]

80. I'm wondering if it's so bad, why are the fundonuts so pissed off?

The RW blogosphere is going apeshit over this.
They did not get what they wanted.

Say what you want about the future, about what could
happen, but right now, this instant, the nutjobs were
denied their hearts desire.

In this day and age of absolute Republican power, that's
a Democratic victory any way you slice it.