Posted on 05/24/2005 2:46:51 AM PDT by Liz
The real winner in the Senate judge deal could be President Bush — because it opens the way for Congress to finally start getting things done.
Right after the deal was unveiled, Democrats were visibly relieved while Republican conservatives were livid, fuming about a "cave" by centrists led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Talk radio and conservative bloggers went wild.
Why? Because the odds were that if push came to shove, Republicans would have had the votes to kill all filibusters of judicial nominees and humiliate Democratic leaders.
No wonder Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) was cheering, even though the deal guarantees confirmation of jurists Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owens and William Pryor — all of whom he's blasted as unacceptable extremists.
"Armageddon has been averted, and thank God," said Schumer, well aware that Democrats could have come off much worse.
That's why conservative Republican activists in the key states of Iowa and New Hampshire are already vowing revenge against McCain if he runs for president in 2008. But the White House put on a positive spin — after all, Bush will now get three of his top-priority appeals court judges confirmed.
And, if the Senate had come to what Democrats called "the nuclear option" — a vote to strip them of filibuster power over judges — all hope for cooperation in the Senate would be over.
Now the success of the judge deal could encourage centrist Democrats — perhaps Sens. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.) — to start working toward compromise on other issues, as Bush has been hoping.
A Democratic staffer predicted one result will be the confirmation of Bush's controversial nominee for U.N. ambassador, John Bolton "No one is going to want to filibuster him now," the staffer conceded.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
If this is a face saving facade for anyone, it is for Frist.
How are they going to be sacrificed? What is the parliamentary process that disposes of them? If the nominees get the vote, then the principle of voting for the nominees is respected. If some Senators are viewed as casting a vote on a nominee based on some deal, instead of on the nominee ... well, that's tough to justify. I like when they are unprincipled in the open.
DEMs. McCain is no threat to conservatives, in a presidential race.
My understanding (quite possibly incorrect as I'm on limited internet right now and little tv) was that certain of the nominees would be sacrificed by not bringing them to a vote. Is this incorrect?
There are many ways to look at it.
I've concluded that what got "sacrificed" is the Dems' ability to label nominees as extremists.
Let's say the dems try to filibuster a USSC nominee. Up til now the media and the dems have been able to avoid discussing nominees, focusing on process instead. After this deal, the media will be forced to cover the judge's record...does it provide an "extraordinary circumstance"? It's hard to imagine Bush nominating someone who could be portrayed thusly.
A fair discussion of a nominee's record is NOT in the dems' interest.
Since the amdinistration never responds to media hype, he will get away with this.
I am not optimitic at all that he will not get away with it if this tactic is not openly challenged by the GOP.
All he has to do is pull off 4% of the national votes, that it.
"because it opens the way for Congress to finally start getting things done. "
As long as they are done according to Democrat demands, it seems.
Just recall please that Tom Daschle's defeat gave us Harry Reid.
But bolton was a done deal anyway.
Yes, psycho McCain may take is ball and run as an Indy when he gets smashed in the 08 primaries.
There is more than one way to "not come to the vote." Myers is out of Committee and on the Senate Calendar. The nomination can't just be handed back to the President - unless GOP leadership never brings him up. If Frist never brings up the nominee, then you betch, FRIST will have caved. But he is not part of the deal.
If debate occurs on Myers, how can the vote be prevented? Just the same way it was prevented 18 times in the 108th Congress - DEMS refuse to vote, and here we are in Filibuster City.
Not even Arlen Spector signed onto this stunt
Spector proved to be more of a Republican then John McCain and his gang
That is an awesome insight. It is GREAT when the discussion gets past the label, and onto WHY the label is attached.
Thanks for the replys. I guess we'll have to wait and see how it all plays out.
I think that the President has gotten a precident and in the process, got seven, unreliable RINOs to throw themselved under the wheels of the bus.
And that is a good thing too, IMO. Causes prevail in proportion to their dissatisfaction.
Cloture Motion is "Vitiated"
(withdrawn, as if it never happened) -------------------------->+
only possible with unanimous consent |
|
|
Quorum Call |
| |
| |
Vote on v
Cloture ---> passes ----> move to "vote on the nominee" ------->+
| |
| |
rejected |
| |
| |
GOP raises a v
point of order ---> chair alone implements point of order ---->+
to the Chair (the ultimate nuclear option) v
| |
| |
Chair passes |
point of order ---> to be decided without debate -->+ |
to the Senate | | |
| | | |
| v | |
| DEM Appeal DEM acquiesce |
| for Debate on to vote on |
| point of order point of order |
| | without debate |
| | | |
v v | |
point of order GOP Motion | |
to be debated <-- fails -- to Table | |
by the Senate the DEM Appeal | |
| (not debatable) | |
| | | |
| | | |
| v | |
| passes | |
| | | |
v | | |
point of order v v |
to be voted on <----------------+<----------------<-+ |
by Senate |
| |
| |
+-----> passes --> gain what the point of order asked for |
| | |
| | |
| v v
| vote on the nomination <----------------<-+
|
|
v
+-----> fails ---> lose what the point of order asked for
no vote on the nomination
Who was Dubya's on-and-off again best pal during the campaign? McCain. So we could interpret that as one of those 'keep your friends close but your enemies closer' type of deals. But who nominated Frist for his current position? President George W. Bush, right? Who hasn't effectively stood up and spoke out for 'The Hammer' Tom DeLay, someone who actually isn't a weenie when it comes to leadership? George W.
Why, if one truly gave this due consideration, the resulting determination could very well be that the biggest RINO of the bunch is President Bush himself. That's my current conclusion but I'm certainly open to being convinced otherwise. Last night all the Dims were saying things like 'he needs to be more like Clinton'. I'd be content if President Bush was even an iota 'more like Reagan'.
Texas better respond with immediate retaliation.... Time to defeat spending in the RINO Senator states....
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.