How the Senate majority leader played a game of filibuster chicken

Dr. Frist's periodic E-mail/National Review ^ | 6/7/05 VOLPAC E-mail (6/20/05 publication) | Byron York

[My2Cents]

Correct. I'm with you...There's been too much spleen-venting on the "deal" by folks here, and not enough reflection on the fact that this deal has somewhat broken-up the logjam.

[ChronicMA]

"Just read on Yahoo News that the Senate voted to end the filibuster on Janice Rogers Brown. So, Priscilla Owen was confirmed; there's going to be a vote on Rogers Brown; Pryor is next...Someone tell me again how this deal was so devastating."

After that they will get through 2 6th Circuit nominees that are not controversial.

But the test of the deal will be the next group, especially these judges: Brett Kavanaugh for the DC circuit, Terrence Boyle and Willaim Haynes for the 4th Circuit. The rats do not like these 3, and they were not part of the deal. The cloture vote on the first of these will tell us where we stand, but that vote may be weeks away.

[My2Cents]

I agree with your assessment. The real test comes later.

[Rumierules]

I hope you are right that the DEMS get nuked if they filibuster Myers and/or Saad but the Agreement suggests that the DEMS won't be applying the "extraodinary circumstances" test to them:

"Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations

A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).

B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).

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. 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.

B. 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
________________

In other words the DEMS commitment only applies to future nominees. It does not apply to Saad or Myers. None of the 7 Republicans that were part of the deal with vote for the Constitutional option of 2 or more DEMs vote to filibuster Myers and/or Saad.

[Rumierules]

with = will

[Peach]

I'll try to see the good in this :-)

[Coop]

Well said. :-)

[rwa265]

Some people just don't get it, do they, Coop?

Senator Frist took a principled stand, stuck to his guns, and the Dems caved. Meanwhile, Frist can still invoke the Constitutional option if he has to. I see it as a pretty good position to be in.

[Coop]

Yeah, I don't mind folks being wary, but to proclaim this is some kind of disaster... well, that's just silly.

[AFPhys]

I think the best way of looking at the head count situation is pretty much as you say in this post, but with FRIST KNOWING (to his satisfaction) that Specter would vote with him.

Meanwhile other head counters (notably Graham) were fearing Specter's "no-commitment" was exactly that uncertain, and apparently in the mean while Graham has been able to gain from Collins a "one last chance for the D's then Nuke" stance.

[AFPhys]

Your take is an accurate reading I believe.

[stands2reason]

How can the deal be "good for Republicans" yet at the same time McCain is still a traitor for doing it?

[stands2reason]

While we're on the subject of Frist and chicken...here's one of his favorites:


Three Boys Chicken Spaghetti

Laurie's note: I am writing up a cookbook, and most of my recipes are coming from celebrities and politicians. Here is a recipe that I would like to share with you. Thanks to Senator Bill Frist from Tennessee for sending me this recipe.

INGREDIENTS:

* 4 large chicken breasts
* 1 small onion
* 1 small green pepper
* 1 can cream of chicken soup
* 1 can cream of mushroom soup
* 1 pound Velveeta cheese
* 1 pound box of spaghetti noodles
* 1 small jar of pimentos-drained (optional)
* 1 small jar of mushrooms (optional)

PREPARATION:
After cooking the chicken breasts, cut the meat into bite-size portions. Chop the onion and green pepper and saute them in one tablespoon of butter. Combine the soups, the cheese and the sauteed peppers and onions.

Keep over low heat until the cheese has melted. Add the cooked chicken, the mushrooms and the pimentos. Cook 3/4 of the 1 pound box of spaghetti. Mix the chicken mixture with the noodles.

Source:
http://southernfood.about.com/od/chickenspaghettirecipes/r/bl30324s.htm?terms=chicken+spaghetti

[SmithL]

Fascinating Read. It also reaffirms my understanding of what actually happened. However, the proof is now, and will continue to be whether the President gets his Judges.

[Coop]

However, the proof is now, and will continue to be whether the President gets his Judges.

I agree.

[Coop]

Yes, that could be what occurs. And if it does go down that way (the infamous 7 allow a filibuster), then it will confirm that a deal took place and they'll be inundated - again - by a bunch of irate conservatives. (And I'll be included in the angry group.) But what I expect to occur is both of these judges to come up for a vote. Then, if there is a deal to scuttle them, the 7 can simply vote against confirmation. I still won't like one or both not getting confirmed, mind you, but who could say if it was a deal or simply them not liking that particular judge?

But from what I've seen recently of Bill Frist, I don't think he'll let that scenario fly. He seems quite tired of this garbage. If a filibuster goes down on Saad or Myers, I think he nukes it.