Compromise Reached, Nuclear Option Abandoned

[coloradodem2005]

In a dramatic reach across party lines, Senate centrists sealed a compromise Monday night to clear the way for confirmation of many of President Bush’s stalled judicial nominees, leave others in limbo and preserve venerable filibuster rules...Under the terms, Democrats agreed to allow final confirmation votes for Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor, named to appeals court seats. There is “no commitment to vote for or against” the filibuster against two other conservatives named to appeals courts, Henry Saad and William Myers.

The agreement said future judicial nominees should “only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances,” with each senator — presumably the Democrats — holding the discretion to decide when those conditions had been met. Officials said the pact was intended to cover the Supreme Court as well as other levels of the judicary. “In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement,” Republicans said they would oppose any attempt to make changes in the application of filibuster rules.

The way this ended up being handled was in some ways a reflection of what happened in Colorado. It was Democrats who were able to broker a budget deal in Colorado when Republicans couldn't do anything with their majority. And now, it is Democrats on Capitol Hill who are coming across as the compromisers on a deal that public opinion polls repeatedly showed favoring the donkeys. How this deal plays out remains to be seen, but Democrats may be able to use this "compromiser" tag in the 2006 elections to win back some seats, just as Colorado Democrats will be able to do in 18 months.

There's a more detailed story from the AP in The Rocky Mountain News, with some more good quotes: "We have reached an agreement to try to avert a crisis in the United States Senate and pull the institution back from a precipice," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., adding the deal was based on "trust, respect and mutual desire to .... protect the rights of the minority.

<snip>
http://coloradopoliticalnews.blogs.com/colorado_political_news/2005/05/compromise_reac.html#more

[NWHarkness]

1. Bingo!

"The way this ended up being handled was in some ways a reflection of what happened in Colorado. It was Democrats who were able to broker a budget deal in Colorado when Republicans couldn't do anything with their majority. And now, it is Democrats on Capitol Hill who are coming across as the compromisers on a deal that public opinion polls repeatedly showed favoring the donkeys. How this deal plays out remains to be seen, but Democrats may be able to use this "compromiser" tag in the 2006 elections to win back some seats, just as Colorado Democrats will be able to do in 18 months."


The way you fight radicals is by looking as reasonable as possible.

[LuPeRcALiO]

3. not sure I see how "this compromiser tag" translates into votes

"Democrats may be able to use this 'compromiser' tag in the 2006 elections to win back some seats, just as Colorado Democrats will be able to do in 18 months."

That's pretty optimistic... if the Dems had popular opinion on their side, shouldn't they have slain the beast instead of buying it off?

[Carrion]

2. Nuke 'em

This was a BAD deal. Letting three neo-fascists onto the appellate court. And allowing the rabid repthugs to come off as "centrists".

[tritsofme]

4. Nuclear option not abandoned

Here's what DeWine said at the presser:

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.