Posted on 05/23/2005 8:19:01 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
Teatime Tim?
You either British or gay as hell.
Do tell.
it may not happen for a while, but the history of our country shows that the pendulum swings both ways. Frankly, you are right about one thing, the Republicans should take advantage of the situation while they can. I a democrat, and if the roles were reversed, that's what I would want.
As far a judicial activism, both sides use it, that is the name of the game.
(Republicans got nothing from this deal that they couldn't have gotten by cutting off the filibuster. This was no horse trade -- it was a give away.)
If Frist was sure to win the vote, do you think this compromise would have happened? Basically the Dems were very nervous about losing the fight outright and the rules be changed. Since they were scared they gave up a few judges in the hopes that something changes electorally and they get some help. The Republicans get a bunch of judges and they still have the option to change the rules. Strategically though the Democrats are the ones who dictate when the fight happens as they can wait to filibuster someone they think they can paint as an extremist. The Republicans understand that and will be may be nervous about nominating a really strong conservative.
Well, according to a former Daschle aide, Graham was quick to work with Daschle and the minority on a number of issues. After one such meeting, Graham emerged from Daschle's office, walked to the door, turned around, and proclaimed loudly for the Daschle's entire staff to hear:
Nite Hypocrites
I agree. This deal postpones the showdown, while immediately putting on the bench 3 judges who might be nominees for the Supreme Court one day. If the Dems continue to stonewall judges because they are women or because they are minorities, or just because they're too darn smart, the Republican Seven are free to declare the original commitment in breach, and vote for the nuclear option. Meanwhile, the Democrat Seven are bound by their word to try to be selective in filibustering judges. Maybe the smarter play would have been going for broke, but who knows how that scenario would have played out. The two parties pulled back from the precipice because they perceived risk in going forward with a confrontation. Now, maybe this group of 14 can try to address other contentious issues, like Social Security.
I don't agree. I think when Rheinquist retires, Scalia becomes Chief Justice, and there is no way that they will put up a moderate. Why should they? Who has the majority anyway?
The 50th senator is always in charge. After all, do you think that the farthest-right senator is going to actually threaten to vote AGAINST a republican nominee becuase he is too far to the left?
Remember that while some on the right actually want solid social religious conservative judges, the real goal is judges who don't write the law. You can find moderates and conservatives, and even the occasional liberal, who won't write law,and all of them should be acceptable.
The same document states that a simple majoroty will determine Presidential appointments.
We are giong backwards. Yesterday, it took 45 Senators to rule. Today, it is down to 14. The deal sucks.
Precisely.
"More to the point regarding Frist, doesn't this show how totally ineffectual he is as a leader?"
Frist will never be a serious candidate for POTUS, much less get elected. He needs to see and orthopaedic surgeon about having a spine installed before he attempts any work that requires standing up.
Actually I am assuming the Dims elect a president some day in the future. In that case I think the seven have committed to supporting any filibuster a group of GOP Senators decide to mount.
I can imagine a senario with a Dim president, a radical judicial nominee, a majority of Dims/RINOs including some of the 7 willing to vote for the nominee. But by taking this deal, they are implicitly promising us not to vote for cloture on any GOP future judicial filibuster whether they agree with it or not.
You are right. The Dims are imploding. They may be years from another President which would let the 7 off the hook on that implied part of the deal. That may be why the made the deal. Certainly McCain is not long for the Senate one would think.
I bet that doesn't happen, though it wouldn't be a bad move. they need to consolidate their power before 2006, and in my view they are following the NeoConservative agenda
I would say a state trending toward the GOP and a Dim trending toward Moveon.org is the combination most likely to lead to an incumbent being defeated in 2006. Wouldn't you agree?
[quote]Also as part of the compromise, the Democrat moderates promise to prevent any future filibuster of Bush appeals court and Supreme Court nominees. While Democrats were able to have their "exceptional circumstances" clause inserted in the deal, no one anticipates that such a situation will arise, assuming Democrats keep their promise. And it appears, that a number of promises were being tossed around the negotiation room on Monday afternoon.
Several Republican senators involved in negotiations swore that not only will the six Bush nominees be given an up or down vote, but that Democrats in the room were aware that Republicans involved in the negotiations had agreed to vote cloture on Myers as well, and that Democratic negotiators had agreed that such a move could take place, thus also allowing Myers an up or down vote in the Senate. "Assuming that our guys hold themselves to that promise," says another Republican staffer working on the Judiciary committee, "then we're looking at a clean sweep for confirmations."
That said, Republican Judiciary Committee staffers said it would have been difficult to clear Saad for confirmation, regardless of the Democrats' unethical behavior in his case. Democratic Judiciary Committee staff and Senate Democratic leadership coordinated an attack against Saad by providing and then sending Sen. Harry Reid a memo detailing uncorroborated raw interview notes from Saad's confidential FBI background check.
"Saad has served on the bench in Michigan, he has been a public figure for years, he has had close associations with several Senate and House members from the state of Michigan," says a Washington lobbyist who has met with Saad on occasion. "This is an honorable man whose nomination was badly damaged by Democrats. Any future nominee should be aware of what the Democrats will do to destroy a good conservative."
If there are any potential losers in this deal, it is the moderate Republicans who have put their reputations on the line with not only their Republican colleagues, but also conservative voters. "If Myers doesn't get a vote, if a reasonable Supreme Court nominee does not receive a vote, or has his or her nomination blocked, then those moderate Republicans should be held accountable by not only the caucus but their constituents," said the Republican Judiciary staffer.
HOW TRUE TO THEIR word Democrats will be may become apparent in about a month, when Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist is expected to announce his retirement. Already in Washington rumors are swirling that current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales may be under serious consideration for the empty slot left vacant after one of the sitting justices is elevated to fill Rehnquist's role.. "You look at what he hasn't done in his few months at Justice," says a former White House staffer, "and it makes you think he's really been looking ahead and trying to keep as clear from controversy as he can."
Gonzales has managed to sidestep taking a position on the Terri Schiavo legal battle, and beyond stating his basic support for the eight judicial nominees in limbo, he has avoided being embroiled in this current debate. As well, he has made very few public appearances where anything remotely controversial could have been uttered.
"Everything points to a Gonzales nomination," says a lobbyist aware of the White House thinking on prospective judicial nominees.[/quote]
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8209
As far as I can see from the breaking news Frist wasn't even in the room. This whole thing was held in McCain's office. So, we don;t really know what the vote may have been.
Basically the Dems were very nervous about losing the fight outright and the rules be changed.
If they were so nervous about losing the fight why would the Republicans make a deal? You don't deal away something you may win.
Strategically though the Democrats are the ones who dictate when the fight happens
This is true. We've given the Democrats the ball and we're playing in their court now. One Democrat can say the magic words: "Extreme Circumstances", and we're back to square one.
The Republicans understand that and will be may be nervous about nominating a really strong conservative.
So, what you're saying is that the Dems win by default? Republicans are so afraid of a fight that they give the Dems the kind of activist judges they want? How long will Conservatives back a Party that does that?
You've neglected to mention the litmus tests!
My definitions:
Extraordinary circumstances = pro life; pro gun ownership
extreme = a trail (however short) of conservative judicial opinions;
Acceptable attributes: pro abortion; gay rights and anti 2nd Amendment
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.