Apparently Chris Matthews has predicted a filibuster when he was on the Today show this morning. He said the Gang of 14 is breaking up and has no sway in the matter. He has it backwards, the Gang of 14 would need to hold together for a successful filibuster.
Succinctly put. That's the truth.
However, there are RINOs who aren't in the Gang of 14, and at present count, I think we need three more RINOs to commit against the filibusters before we can say it's a lock.
But I came up with that count by scanning the alphabetical list of Senators, and counting in my head. I might've miscounted.
I'll be on the road today, but maybe someone else could do a count and see if I'm accurate or not.
Does he think the Dems will try it anyways forcing the GOP to go nuclear?
Let me be more precise: There are Repub senators who are either RINOs or who have expressed reservations about removing the option of judicial filibusters, and who are not members of the Gang of 14.
I think that's correct.
The Gang of 14 will stick together because they control the balance of power on so called controversial judicial nominations. Also, Landrieu, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson and Robert Byrd are all up for re-election, and they all come from conservative Red States whose voters would not be happy with a filibuster.
There are two places where the gang plays. One is on withholding enough votes so that the 60 vote cloture hurdle is not crossed, the other is to obtain a 50 vote agreement that cloture abuse in the context of nominations is contrary to the balance of powers implied by the Constitution.
Those waypoints are couched in the phrase "extraordinary circumstance," coined by the gang of 14. Once each player in the gang renders an opinion as to whether or not Alito is within the "extraordinary circumstance" sphere, the playout of the nomination is clarified.
I suspect today's meeting of the gang of 14 will NOT add clarity. THey will emerge with the "news" that each of them is free to decide "extraordinary circumstance" on his or her own. Dewine and Graham have consistently, since May, held that "extraordinary circumstance" represents a nomination that is beyond the pale, I see that as a judge that the Senator would vote to impeach - better to nip it in the bud than admit the judge to the office.
Salazar is making noises that Alito may represent extraordinary circunmstances, because he may be an ideologue. I am pretty sure that Snowe and Collins will caucus with the DEMs on this - so the situation is similar to the Circuit Court impasse of May, except the stakes are higher. The DEMs would be able to sustain refusal to vote on the nominee - it's too visible. The public understands that fairness requires the nominee to be given an up or down vote.
Filibuster is difficult when you have press coverage. The previous nominees weren't given much coverage because they were lower court judges. I don't see a filibuster getting any better press than the Anita Hill debacle, which is to say, it will not go over well.
The central problem with filibusters is that they appear to the public to be a sore loser's tool, a whiney hissy fit when one is clearly beaten. Filibusters were designed to limit the actions taken by the legislative branch, because the Founder's feared an active government more than a passive one, but they feel like cheating to the public.