GOP talking point and counter:'Unless a nominee is more extreme than Janice

[AirAmFan]

Rogers Brown, seven Democrats have agreed not to filibuster him or her." David Brooks just announced this on PBS Nightly News, and Mark Shields did not contradict him.

But this thesis apparently flows from reading INCORRECTLY between the lines of the Memo of Understanding just signed by 14 moderate and institutionalist Senators. True, Part I of the memo stipulates that Janice Rogers Brown and two other right-wing kooks shall not be filibustered, and Part II.A says, "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."

But nowhere does the memo say that Janice Rogers Brown does not fall within the definition of "extraordinary circumstances."

And there are four reasons not to read between the lines the way Brooks did:

(1) The paragraph of the agreement that greenlights Brown and the other two nominees is entitled simply, "A. Votes for Certain Nominees." It is not entitled, "Greenlighting of Certain Ordinary Nominees, whose nominations define limits for allowing future filibusters".

(2) The paragraph that deals with future nominations is in a separate part of the memo, to set it off from the list of greenlighted short-term nominations. It begins,

"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."

(3) This last sentence implies that the "Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution" and "good faith" are to be the standard for whether or not future nominations should be filibustered.

(4) The standard for allowing filibusters in the future is discussed further at the end of the memo:

"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."

Quotes above are from http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/05/05/TheDeal.pdf .

What do you think? Was David Brooks's reading of the memo correct?

[aquart]

1. Brooks never gets anything right. Only right wing.

[AirAmFan]

62. He sure gets the WH talking points right. There must be a regular

schedule of personalized faxes, emails, or phone briefings from the WH Communications Office tied in with Brooks's appearances on PBS Newshour. He's one of their top presstitutes.

[RUMPLEMINTZ]

2. That's the whole problem

with this fu**ing deal! Now that we let the 3 most extremists get approved how can Harry Reid say that anyone who is just like Brown is an "extremist?"

[AirAmFan]

4. Harry didn't sign the agreement, so he's not bound by it.

[Internut]

5. He isn't, but the seven Democrats who did sign it are -

and it would be extremely hard for them to argue that any nominee on the same level as Owen and Brown are "extraordinary" when they agree to these two. Without these seven, there is no filibuster, so Harry is powerless, whether he is bound by it or not.

[AirAmFan]

6. So you agree with David Brooks? Why? Why are you ratifying an important

Rethug talking point, one that has no foundation in the memo?

[Internut]

7. If you read the memo you will see

exactly that point. Every member of the group of 14 has discretion to decide what "extraordinary circumstance" means. If two Republicans, at their discretion, decide that the circumstance is not "extraordinary" - we're screwed. This is not "ratifying a talking point". This is reading plain English.

[AirAmFan]

8. Read a bit further, or read my original post. The seven Republicans

are entitled to their opinions about what constitutes "extraordinary circumstances", but they are not relieved of their pledge not to vote for any arbitrary ruling by Cheney reducing cloture to 51 votes from 60. They have signed on to prevent any such rule-change vote until 2007, and permitted Dems to decide for THEMselves what constitutes "extraordinary circumstances".

It's an "asymmetric agreement"--7 Dems agreed CONDITIONALLY to avoid voting for filibusters against judicial nominations, and the condition is vague enough to cover every nominee except the three specifically mentioned in Part I. However, 7 Republicans agreed UNCONDITIONALLY not to vote for any filibuster rules change until 2007. Thus Frist has only a maximum of 55-7 = 48 votes to ratify an arbitrary reduction in the number of votes needed for cloture.

If they don't like Democratic votes for filibusters, they have signed away their right to protest under that Memo of Understanding, under the specific sentence you quoted in your last post, combined with this provision of the memo:

"IIB. 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."

[Internut]

9. That's just plainly not true.

"However, 7 Republicans agreed UNCONDITIONALLY not to vote for any filibuster rules change until 2007. " - wrong.

They agreed not to vote for the "nuclear option" CONDITIONAL on Democrats not filibustering except in "extraordinary circumstances". Since the document says that every signatory (not just Democrats, as you seem to imply) decides for himself what is "extraordinary" and what is not, if Democrats filibuster and any of the Republicans who signed feel that the circumstance is not "extraordinary" that can be interpreted as a breach of contract.

[AirAmFan]

10. "NO! Each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in"

determining whether such circumstances exist.

"The seven Republicans CANNOT decide for the 7 Democrats what constitutes "extraordinary circumstances" And there is no clause in Paragraph IIB that releases the 7 Republicans from upholding current filibuster rules until 2007 under ANY circumstance.

If any of the Republicans were to do what you suggest, THAT would constitute clear breach of this contract.

We Democrats are much more clever than you apparently think!

[Internut]

11. No they cannot decide for Democrats

but they can decide for themselves. And when they do, and decide that the Democrats are filibustering although no "extraordinary circumstances" exist (as they decided, using their (Republican senators') own discretion), they call the deal off and out comes the "nuclear option".

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the agreement. Be sure that the Republican senators don't share your misunderstanding.

[AirAmFan]

12. No, you DEFINITELY misunderstand the clear provisions of the agreement.

Read it through again, at the URL in my original post.

[Internut]

14. Did. I stand by my interpretation, which is

clearly the correct one. You are allowing wishful thinking to cloud your judgment.

[dansolo]

13. The problem is that it is ambiguous

You are both correct, and I can guarantee that each side will interpret in such a way that they can blame the other side of violating the compromise. This compromise puts the onus on the Democrats, because the matter of violations of the compromise, which almost certainly will occur, will be played out in the Republican controlled media. Whose interpretation will be heard more often? The Republicans. I can't understand how the Democrats could have allowed this language in the compromise. After conceding the three horrible judges, they shouldn't have allowed any wiggle room for the Republicans to slither out of their obligation. But, considering that they were willing to violate the Constitution and the Rules of the Senate with the "nuclear option" in the first place, how can they even be trusted to keep their word here?

[Internut]

15. The rule of thumb in contracts is if the language

is ambiguous, it is ambiguous on purpose, to allow each party their own interpretation. It is silly to claim that the interpretation I gave is wrong, when it is definitely NOT contradicted by the language of the agreement. I will give you 10 to 1 odds that this will be the exact interpretation that will be used to blow up the agreement if Democrats ever filibuster a judicial nominee again.

[AirAmFan]

17. See post #16 to your alter-ego

[AirAmFan]

16. Where is the ambiguity in paragraph IIB? There is none. The agreement

is ASYMMETRIC, not ambiguous.

You're probably correct that the corporate media will try to ratify Brooks's sophistry, though.

That doesn't mean we should help them.

[Internut]

18. I don't know how to explain this more clearly but I will try -

any agreement implies that two sides agree. That is the root of the word "agreement". The memo states that each signatory uses his/her own discretion to decide what is "extraordinary circumstance". Note that it specifically does NOT single out Democratic signatories, but includes all of them. Thus, it implies, that the signatories have to agree - ALL of them - that the circumstances are, in fact, "extraordinary".

This is elementary, and is silly to argue about. Since this agreement is not a binding contract and will never be argued in court, our argument is really irrelevant, but if it was, in fact, argued in court, your argument would be dismissed immediately. If you don't believe me - find a contract lawyer, pay hin $20 for a consult and show him the agreement. He will tell you the same thing.

[AirAmFan]

19. You have not answered my question in post #16. Where is the "OUT" in

Paragraph IIB? There is none:

IIB. 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."

[tritsofme]

21. "In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement"

The next we filibuster an extremist nominee, a few of DU's favorite centrist Republicans will say according to their individual judgement that the circumstance is not extraordinary and that in light of the filibuster the spirit of the agreement and commitments made within it has been broken. They will accuse the Democrats of reneging on their part of the deal, and vote with Frist on the nuclear option.

Many of you wrongly put much faith in the sense of decency within these "moderate Republicans"

[AirAmFan]

29. Maybe even more than Democrats, 'moderate' Republicans may oppose

neocons and wacko fundies, for reasons of political power and influence. They may not be acting out of "sense of decency", but rather on cold political calculation. If cloture took only 51 votes, the six moderate Republicans who signed the memo would be irrelevant to the confirmation of judges. They'd lose their power to control outcomes in the Senate, just like Democrats. BullGooseLoony has a great thread on this point, at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3717438&mesg_id=3717438 .

[tritsofme]

30. 55-7=48

Even without the filibuster, these "moderate" Republicans still hold the keys to confirmation.

[AirAmFan]

32. 55 - 6 = 49, meaning that, with Cheney's tie-breaker vote, Frist

would need to buy only one of the six moderate Rs' votes, or one DLC Senator's vote, to invoke cloture and install a wacko on the bench

Remember, Warner, though one of the 14, is by no means a "moderate": Like Byrd, he's an "institutionalist" who signed the Memo only after re-reading and re-contemplating the Federalist Papers.

[tritsofme]

37. You need to to tie at 50 for Cheney to break the tie

So that means pealing two off of the group, not 1, assuming there are 100 senators in the chamber...I don't know if the rules read that it is a majority of senators period, or a majority of senators concurring to make the rule change.

[AirAmFan]

39. I agree. 49+1=50 is a corollary of my post #32. Frist need buy just 1

of the 6 Republican 'moderates' to break any judicial filibuster if Cheney's rules putsch takes place.

It sounds as if Graham and DeWine are bidding furiously for a deal with Frist to be that single senator. One temporary problem: "Institutionalist" Warner likely won't go along with the rules change under any circumstances. So Frist needs to break loose an extra 'moderate' Senator from the memo for the rules change. After that, Warner would have no problem being one of 50 Senators to vote cloture on any nomination.

This is why Democrats are so foolish to allow Republicans like Brooks to put their talking point out there unchallenged. The critical path to a permanent Scalia majority in the Supreme Court, the end of Roe v Wade, the advent of school vouchers for Falwell, rollback of African-American civil rights gains to 1950, etc runs through misinterpreting the Memo of Understanding in exactly the way David Brooks and the National Review prescribe. See yesterday's National Review editorial promoting Brooks's talking point at http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200505240936.asp .

[tritsofme]

40. 51-49 Frist is defeated

51-50 is still a defeat.

They need to break two off of the deal. Not one.

[AirAmFan]

41. Oh, I see what you're saying. You may be right. Do you have a link?

I'll stipulate what you're saying here about the "nuclear option" if you'll stipulate the larger point I'm making about the importance to Republicans of the talking point that is the critical gist of this thread.

[tritsofme]

44. A link to what?

If they only break off one person from the agreement the nuclear option is defeated 51-49. That's all there is to that.

I agree with you that the Republicans will use the talking points you cited above, and probably be successful in doing so.

[DukeDevil]

34. who defines "extraordinary"

As your math shows, the Repugs only need two more votes to go nuclear. This story shows how easily they could pick them up, and how meaningless this deal might be.

"Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), two of the seven Republican signatories to the memorandum of understanding on the judges, backed up Frist, threatening to vote for the option should Democrats attempt to block nominees in circumstances that the two lawmakers would not consider 'extraordinary.'"

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/052505/frist.html

So Graham and DeWine are basically expressing a willingness to go nuclear and screw everyone.

[Internut]

22. The out is breach of contract on the other side -

"in light of the spirit and continuing commitments..." which is a general "out" for any contract. If the Republicans who signed decide that the commitments have been broken by the Democrats (which is what would happen if the Republican(s) did NOT agree that the circumstances are "extraordinary" enough to warrant a filibuster), that is an "out" for them. I don't know why you keep refusing to understand such an elementary concept.

[AirAmFan]

24. SOPHISTRY! You've gone from arguing the memo buttresses Brooks

"in Plain English" (your reply #7 above) to saying the memo is "ambiguous" (your #15) to the nonsequiturs of your #22. Clearly now you see that 7 Republicans have unconditionally promised to vote against any 109th Congress rules change that would reduce the number of votes needed for cloture, while 7 Democrats have not limited their future votes in any way.

Of course anyone who signs any contract can try to abrogate it at any time. But the seven Republicans have given themselves no contractual reason for failing to live up to their promise to vote down attempted changes in filibuster rules until 2007.

[Internut]

27. Now you are just arguing by assertion -

as I said, show it to any contract lawyer and ask his opinion. You will see.

[tritsofme]

31. They have done no such thing

There is no unconditional promise.

See my reply 21.

[AirAmFan]

33. Humbug! That phrase is pure "filler" with no operational effect.

"in light of the spirit and continuing commitments", indeed. It might be interpreted to mean: "You've given us conditional promise A. Now in return we give you UNCONDITIONAL promise B"

You're in the Republican post-defeat "spin room", not in the operational language of the signed contract.

[tritsofme]

38. I see no other reason that phrase would be inserted

other than to provide an out for the Republicans.

Why would they purposefully give unconditional support to our conditional support?

Its not logical, and would only benefit us.

When they break the agreement, that's what they are going to say.

[AirAmFan]

42. Kudos for expressing honest doubt about your position.

My reply would be that the 7 Republican Senators and their staffs made a crucial hasty mistake in a chaotic drafting room. Now, after their stupid error, they are trying to remedy it in the "spin room".

[Internut]

43. Wishful thinking.

Did you show this to any contract lawyers yet?

[AirAmFan]

45. National Review May 24th: 'AN ASYMMETRIC DEAL (Ramesh Ponnuru)

'Here's what the Democrats commit to in the future: "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." Here's what the Republicans commit to: "In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress. . ."

So: Democrats can filibuster nominees in "extraordinary circumstances," to be determined according to the "discretion and judgment" of Ralph Neas--I mean, of each individual senator. Republicans, on the other hand, are not getting any wiggle room to vote for a rules change in "extraordinary circumstances"--such as the Democrats' abuse of their wiggle room. It looks as though the majority party got taken in this deal.

Posted at 08:17 PM'

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

The above is what the ultra-right National Review blogger said a couple of hours after the text of the Memo of Understanding was released. It's about a third of the way through a long weekly archive at http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_05_22_corner-archive.asp .

But after the editors put their heads together in their spin room, they came up with the Brooks interpretation you fell for hook, line, and sinker. See the URL in post number 39 above.

[Internut]

46. It is VERY simple to decide our argument -

show this contract to any contract lawyer and ask his opinion. I did. Did you?

[AirAmFan]

47. Wishful thinking is expecting that the average attorney might tell anyone

who's chosen him or her anything he or she thinks you don't want to hear.

[Internut]

51. Let's see what one of the Republican seven says about it

HUME: ... is now off the table. However, let us look ahead, Senator Warner, and posit a situation in which we're past these three judges who were enumerated in the deal, and another of the judges already nominated, or a new one comes along, and Democrats announce they're going to filibuster. What happens then?

WARNER: Well, let's go back to your opening statement. This filibuster rule that we preserved by virtue of this framework clearly in the agreement, and I've got a copy here, the constitutional option, which we call it, is not off the table. And we all 14 understand that. It is very much on the table.

To use an example, we simply unscrewed the fuse. But that fuse can be put back in if we detect that it's not extraordinary circumstances, but we're back to where the Democrats begin to trot out and do a leadership-led type of series of filibusters.

At that point, senators, seven senators of which I was one, any one or more of them may say, "Time out. I'm not satisfied that this is extraordinary circumstances as a matter of good conscience. I'm going to give leader Bill Frist the vote." And then Frist can ascertain whether or not he wants to use that constitutional measure.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157576,00.html

Hmm. I guess he didn't ask you for your interpretation of the agreement.

[AirAmFan]

52. See post #6. Evidently you've learned NOTHING from this thread, and need

reinforcement.

Why WOULDN'T any Republican repeat the party line manufactured in their spin rooms?

Find a link where 44 Democratic Senators plus Linclon Chafee support Brooks's interpretation and it would be a bit more persuasive.

[Internut]

53. You don't get it at all -

it does NOT matter what 44 Democratic Senators and Lincoln Chafee thing about it. It matters what the Republican seven think about it. Because they are the ones that decide whether the nuclear option exists or not.

[AirAmFan]

57. But those 7 Rs are held back by the accusations of "BAD FAITH!" 44 Ds

and Jim Jeffords will hurl if they try to weasel out of their signed agreement.

The only thing holding back one side from arbitrarily abrogating or flagrantly violating any contract is the other side's recourse to remedies for violation. In this case, the contract provides no escrow forfeiture, specific penalty, mandatory arbitration, release from obligation, or confession of judgment as a recourse. The only recourse is political attacks on the reputation of the signers by the other side, which includes Democrats and Independents who did not sign the contract. Our side would say to the 7 Rs, "Your word and signed promises are no good! You have violated our trust, and we'll never trust you again!"

What I "don't get" is why you are trying to help Bill Frist, the National Review, and David Brooks win back in the "spin room" what they gave up at the bargaining table.

[Internut]

59. Your problem is you think they "gave" something

and you think that if you repeat it enough you will convince them. They don't care what you think. You don't vote for them. They, quite explicitly, stated what they think of the agreement, as I quoted to you, and their opinion (which is the one that matters) is completely different from yours.

[AirAmFan]

60. Enjoy your glass of Kool-Aid. I form my own opinions based on the evidence.

[Leafy Geneva]

54. I don't agree.

Thus, it implies, that the signatories have to agree - ALL of them - that the circumstances are, in fact, "extraordinary".

The word used in the document is "each", not "all". I don't see any language that even seems to imply a necessary unanimous agreement among those signing.

[Internut]

56. The "all of them" comes from the numbers -

because all of them need to vote together in order to block things.

See this from an interview with one of the Republican signatories, Senator Warner:

HUME: ... is now off the table. However, let us look ahead, Senator Warner, and posit a situation in which we're past these three judges who were enumerated in the deal, and another of the judges already nominated, or a new one comes along, and Democrats announce they're going to filibuster. What happens then?

WARNER: Well, let's go back to your opening statement. This filibuster rule that we preserved by virtue of this framework clearly in the agreement, and I've got a copy here, the constitutional option, which we call it, is not off the table. And we all 14 understand that. It is very much on the table.

To use an example, we simply unscrewed the fuse. But that fuse can be put back in if we detect that it's not extraordinary circumstances, but we're back to where the Democrats begin to trot out and do a leadership-led type of series of filibusters.

At that point, senators, seven senators of which I was one, any one or more of them may say, "Time out. I'm not satisfied that this is extraordinary circumstances as a matter of good conscience. I'm going to give leader Bill Frist the vote." And then Frist can ascertain whether or not he wants to use that constitutional measure.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157576,00.html

[AirAmFan]

61. Precisely, Leafy Geneva. Thanks for not letting the misintepretation

in #18 slip by. I had ignored its contents, since it was nonresponsive to the direct question I'd posed in #16.

You are right. In a particularly Orwellian way, that reply substitutes "ALL" when the text plainly says "EACH", apparently trying to make the sentence mean the opposite of what it clearly states.

[AirAmFan]

20. Thanks for being such a good "foil".

[kainah]

3. that advice and consent clause

By my reckoning, that's really the most important part of the whole agreement. If bush continues to pretend he has all the power and has no need for Senate input, he's now insulting not just the Dems but these 7 repugs as well.

[ginnyinWI]

23. what I got from it, between the lines:

It seems to me that what the 14 are saying is that Bush had better nominate reasonably moderate judges, or none of them are promising to confirm them, Dems or Repubs. They are "trusting" each other on this to force Bush to be more moderate. Frist needs these moderates to get a majority of votes.

Failing that, they are "trusting" each other to allow the filibuster by not voting with Frist and going nuclear.

All the Dems and the Repubs who are moderate all want the same thing: moderate judicial nominees and keeping the Senate the way it always has been. They are all sick and tired of taking marching orders from the radical right.

[CityDem]

36. That was my original thought

I thought that the provision requiring Bush to nominate reasonable, moderate judges was pretty important. Then I heard Lindsey Graham state that Miquel Estrada would be considered mainstream and acceptable to the group of 14! Graham also stated that this takes ideology out of the decision making process and reverts back to the days where a nominee was considered fit if he/she wasn't a kook, pedophile or a felon.

I believe that Graham and Dewine were beaten up pretty badly by the conservative whacko base and are now back tracking.

[kainah]

48. the wingers are after Graham and DeWine

that's pretty clear so I would expect both of them to be backtracking now.

[bklyncowgirl]

25. Extroadinary circumstances could mean just about anything.

It could even mean that Senators get pissed off at the Administration's behavior or that of the leadership of either party.

[AirAmFan]

26. Precisely! You've got it!

McCain must be a real country bumpkin to have accepted that language in the memo!

[LizW]

28. Al Franken talking about this just now

And for some strange reason, he's agreeing with Brooks.

The thing is, "extraordinary circumstances" is a meaningless phrase. The way I see it, the Dems can invoke it whenever they want. It is, by the clear language of the agreement, entirely subjective. THAT's why the Repugs are already trying to limit and define what would be extraordinary circumstances. And they're doing it by making the bizarre argument that Rogers-Brown is the biggest possible extremist.

In effect, the Repugs are trying to say, "Janice Rogers-Brown, Bush's nominee, who we already all voted to confirm, is so extreme that no one could ever be more extreme."

They know that the "exceptional circumstances" language is a big wide open door to the future use of the filibuster, and they are desperately trying to close it after the fact.

Also, Brooks is making this argument without acknowledging that there is a big difference in a nomination for a lower Federal court and a nomination for Supreme Court. A loony-toon nominated for Supreme Court would much more quickly justify the invocation of "exceptional circumstances" than the same loony-tune nominated for a lower court.

[AirAmFan]

35. Great points, Liz. NOW they say, 'By the way, no 'extraordinary

circumstances can EVER exist', because the listing of Janice Rogers Brown in Part I of the memo defines deviancy away for all time.

Your second point also is an important one. There's a big difference between a Federal Circuit Court and the US Supreme Court. No degree of political horsetrading can put automatically an ultra-right wing wacko in the same class as Thurgood Marshall or John Marshall.

[kainah]

49. the same line used by Tony Perkins tonight

on the Newshour. Furthermore, he said that Lindsey Graham wrote that segment and Lindsey says..... Clearly, Graham has been beaten up by the right and is now trying to make himself the front-and-center power broker.

But there is a simple enough counterargument. Clearly, since they had to use an extraordinary measure to get Owen (and presumably Brown & Pryor) confirmed, they are clearly extraordinary nominees.

The argument can go on from there but that's an effective counter that gets you to the he said-she said level that the media accepts.

[AirAmFan]

50. Great point: What could be MORE 'extraordinary' than the way the Owen,

Brown, and Pryor nominations are getting to the Senate floor? They must set the standard for the outer limit of "EXTRAordinary', ratther than the limit of the ordinary.

I'm sorry I missed Newshour tonight. It seems to be turning into THE place for right-wing spin, maybe thanks to the former Voice of America propagandists who've been put in charge of PBS.

[mandomom]

55. Extraordinary

circumstances of the Brown, Owen and Pryor nominations were prime example of extraordinary cirmcustances, as is the Bolton nomination. No future extraordinary circumstances will be allowed to float by the will of our American constitutional republic's principles. It is Bush's responsibiity as an American to nominate only judges or justices or other appointees who do are not encumbered with such circumstances.

That's our talking point: Brown, Owen and Pryor's "extraordinary circumstances" were given a pass by the good will of the democratic senators. But never again.

[AirAmFan]

58. That IS a great talking point for our side. Courts have to represent the

consensus of impartial experts about the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, or our Republic becomes no better than the arbitrary British colonialism that preceded it. Think back to the really influential USSC decisions that changed America for the good. Many of them, like the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Ed decision, were UNANIMOUS!

What Rove and Frist are trying to do undermines fundamentally the basis for respect for our laws and our democratic Republic. With a Frist-installed coterie of hare-brained ultra-right wackos, the USSC would be incapable of Constituionally-inspired consensus on the toughest issues of our times, and divided we would fall.

[AirAmFan]

63. See also a Washington Post story on dueling interpretations

of the agreement, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/29/AR2005052900812.html , and the DU discussion of the article, at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1510334