Posted on 06/07/2005 4:40:50 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Not only is there a bright side for conservatives in the recent Senate “compromise” on Presidential appointments, but it’s hard to find any reason at all to justify celebration by liberal Democrats.
President Bush’s long-stalled 5th Circuit nominee, Priscilla Owen, now sits on that federal bench, and confirmations of capable conservatives Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor are soon to follow. Even the prospective nominations of William Meyers and Henry Saad have been sidetracked in thought only. Make no mistake – the dam has cracked and its eventual collapse is as easy as ever to see.
The seven Republican signatories have been called sellouts, but if that’s true, the transition occurred long before this Faustian bargain. But what is new is that we finally have some Democrat sellouts who have now compromised what had been the monolithic bulwark of liberal obstructionism of Presidential appointments.
Not only have the seven Republican compromisers compromised their own ability to oppose changing Senate rules when the Dems act up again, but more significantly, the seven Democrat “moderates” have discarded much of their cover from opposing the filibuster when the inevitable well-qualified Supreme Court nominee comes on the scene. For the thinnest of upsides, either merely delaying a vote for a rule change or having a chance to desperately claim an “extraordinary circumstance,” the latter seven have swapped their power to impede in exchange for forever compromising their standard for who qualifies as an acceptable circuit court judge – and by extension, an acceptable Supreme Court justice. Even the value to the libs of the phrase “extraordinary circumstances” has been gutted by their colleagues agreeing to cloture on three clearly conservative, originalist jurists.
The dishonestly named “nuclear option” is not only still intact, but the political fallout from its still-possible use – which will be more justified than ever if it’s needed – will no longer contaminate Republican electoral strategy.
The radical Senate Democrats having again delayed the vote for Ambassador John Bolton within three days of this deal – on the flimsiest of excuses – exposes more than anything in recent memory that spiteful and disingenuous children have commandeered the once-great party of honest men such as Harry Truman. The comical leftist claim that, “Oh, we meant just that we wouldn’t filibuster the President’s judicial appointments” rings so hollow that it reduces the Senate Dems to playing word games reminiscent of the Clinton years, when even the meaning of 2-letter words was beyond the grasp of these jokers.
The unintentional result of such nonsense may be a wake-up call for a pivotal portion of the US electorate.
There is no Constitutional basis for filibuster of Presidential appointments or for the procedure at all, for that matter. But the arcane rules of the Senate and, sadly, Constitutional content, has largely fallen out of the knowledge of the general public. What voters will see, however, is that the venality of ousted South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle is so ingrained in his lefty former colleagues, that they should be similarly discarded at the first possible occasion.
There’s a golden opportunity here, and President Bush appears to be slipping on lighter gloves. There may yet be some justified celebration over the aftermath of this agreement, but in November ’06, it’s likely to be on the right side of the aisle.
Mr. Brenner is a business owner in Tucson, Ariz., and former President of the Pima County Republican Club.
Um. DUH.
I wasn't crazy about the deal either, but it was never a defeat, all the conservatives who were declaring defeat were wrong, and it's obvious that we have the upper hand in the fight. We never gave that up, and we won't.
If the Dems fillibuster the SC nominee, they will lose, and they know it.
I listened to the talk radio here in the SF Bay area and the ranting against the deal, and it was rabid! I don't like the tendency of folks like McCain to cross the aisle and lick boots, but figured maybe there was something in it that would turn out good for Republicans. If this guy's right, there is.
I hated this "deal." But the author is correct on this point. I thought the only bright side was that once the Democrats betrayed the "deal", the Republicans would look good by comparison if they brought up the "nuclear option." The MSM will still scream bloody murder, but fewer people will listen.
You're right. Filibustering any of President Bush's SC nominees would be a huge tactical error for the already shabby Democrats.
Thanks for your excellent comments.
Char :)
no currently pro-Roe justice will be replaced with an anti-Roe one. whether it be a vote (failed) on the rules change, or enough republicans voting against that nominee, it will never happen.
Watch out, posting this kind of stuff will get you on the invisible black-list.
I posted this one because it's actually the first one I've seen which argues that we Republicans didn't come out of the storm too badly, after all. It's always good intellectual exercise to view opposing points of view.
Thanks for your comment!
Char :)
I agree. I do think, however, that the weasels cannot be excused because this is going to work out ok for us. I think they inadvertently gave us the advantage, I think perhaps because that prayer "no weapon formed against him shall prosper" actually has been answered.
I'm going to cross link it here so others can read it... A good article imo.
How the Senate majority leader played a game of filibuster chicken
by Bryon York, NRO.
Like all agreements it depends on how each side performs. If as Graham has promised:
1. ALL the judicial appointment go through the regular confirmation process.
2. Bolton is not filibustered.
3. The Supreme Court nominees are not filibustered.
4. The Dims dont stall other things in the Senate like a Social Security reform that has majority support.
Then it was worth giving the Dims face saving cover. That will be all they have gotten in this deal, they did not have to suffer the in your face loss of a rules change. No since humiliating an opponent whose cooperation can be helpful.
But only time will tell if the Dims behave this way. If not, I suspect the GOP will clearly have the votes to change the rules. I would not be surprised if even RINOs like Snowe and Collins got much negative mail on this issue.
I don't think Graham ever promised that no LEGISLATION would get fillibustered, even the Nuke option wouldn't fix that, but I do think the other 3 are likely.
I agree and did not mean to imply no legislation would be filibustered. The issue to me is would the Dims filibuster any social security legislation just so the GOP could not get credit. If no social social security legislations would ever be acceptable to them, that would be breaking the spirit of the deal in my view.
Umm, but the new deal only applies to Judges.
Not that I want the Dims to fillibuster SS reform, not at all, I'm just not sure what the deal has to do with it.
I don't care for McCain, but this deal never bothered me. I was not sure we had the votes to pass the nuclear option. Now if the Dems get out of hand, the nuclear option will easily pass. The downside it we may lose a judge or two, but I don't see a filibuster working for a Supreme Court nominee. That would definitely be nuked.
True. That's why I said the Dems won't dare block a SC nominee. In that case, Specter, Warner, and at least one of the Maine twins will all but certainly vote for us. (I think Specter and Warner would have anyway at the end of the day, but it's not a question anymore)
Umm, but the new deal only applies to Judges.
___________________________________________________
Of course it does not. That is the whole point. The deal specifically mentions five judges but the deal is for the Dims to return to the traditions of the Senate. The is not filibustering judicial appointments and also not obstructing for obstructings sake. We shall.
The RATS took a bad deal to save face and now they have pie all over that face. It's good for me! As long as this will end in a Supreme Court that interprets the Constitution and lower courts that do the same and not legislate from the bench I'm for it. Next step for the Pubbies is tort reform, most importantly "loser pays". When that happens you'll be able to tell a radical lefty ACLU type by the brown streak on the seat of his/her pants. When that happens we can say, the people won, the Republic is preserved, and all is right with liberty and justice. Until then it's still the fight of our lives.
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.