Redstate

A press release from Harry Reid's office yesterday regarding negotiating a "compromise" on judicial nominees:

As part of any resolution, the nuclear option must be off the table.

No can do, Harry.

But I fear you are right.

Frist Says He's Not Interested in Deals

(04-26) 09:07 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

Reacting to a Democratic offer in the fight over filibusters, Republican leader Bill Frist said Tuesday he isn't interested in any deal that fails to ensure Senate confirmation for all of President Bush's judicial nominees.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/04/26/national/w080059D14
.DTL

and was puzzled by Doverspa's post. My impression of the whole affair is that Frist is bluffing, hence the blustery talk from republicans lately. I think that

a: they don't have the votes or

b: they have the votes but know it's not going to go over well with the public.

Frist is playing it out badly, but he's between a rock and a hard place with no easy way out, which is fine with me. I love seeing republican politicians squirm, no offense guys. :)

I for one think he's bluffing.

The quote should read...

Reacting to a Democratic offer in the fight over filibusters, Republican leader Bill Frist said Tuesday he isn't interested in any deal that fails to ensure a vote for all of President Bush's judicial nominees

Well the stage is set then. This will be interesting to see how this plays out for both sides.

He doesn't care for the "compromise":

"We believe that every judicial nominee deserves an up or down vote," Rove said. "The process is not well served by these political games."

Rove said Bush tried to end the stalemate when he renominated just seven of the 10 nominees who had been blocked last year. But "I saw no change in tone" among Democrats, he said. "The flamethrowers ... came out within moments."

Let's see what Frist does, but the White House pressure looks like it will be to tell Las Vegas Harry to shove it.

The Los Angeles Times, certainly no bastion of conservatism published an editorial today urging Republican leaders to nuke the filibuster.

The LA Times wrote "At the risk of seeming dull or unfashionable for not getting our own intellectual makeover, we still think judicial candidates nominated by a president deserve an up-or-down vote in the Senate. We hardly see eye to eye with the far right on social issues, and we oppose some of these judicial nominees, but we urge Republican leaders to press ahead with their threat to nuke the filibuster."

Futhermore it stated that: "The filibuster is a reactionary instrument that goes too far in empowering a minority of senators."

it just happens to take 60 votes and the gop doesnt have enough.

dont like it?

change the rules. oh yeah i forgot that takes 67 votes.

dont have that many votes?

ok break the rules to change the rules.

that would be the dumbest thing frist could do.  the second he does that, it will be tied up in court until probably after GWB is out of office.

I've said a few times that the problem with this issue is the dearth of understanding of Senate rules and of the Constitution (not to mention a wealth of misinformation!).

This issue/problem is larger than Sens. Frist and Reid, Karl Rove, and even the President.  The problem is that far too many people don't know that the Senate has every right to filibuster legislation, because that is Congress's property uniquely, but the Senate is NOT authorized to filibuster judicial nominations, because they are just a step in a larger governmental process.  That step is called "advise and consent", which means discuss it in committee and then vote "yay" or "nay" on the floor.

Whatever Democrats or Republicans have done in the past that could be construed as filibustering judicial nominations is irrelevant.  The correct answer is:  don't do it.  Regardless of the outcome of the current debate, Republicans have lost if the public doesn't emerge with a greater understanding of the Constitutional reasoning.

I know...don't hold my breath.

Let us not forget that in the wake of the Trent Lott kerfuffle, all references to Strom Thurmond aside, Senator Frist was viewed by many in his own party as the man who would do a good job "stepping up" where Lott had failed. From where we stand now, he may or may not have failed to live up to that billing. The jury is still out.

Either way, though, before we start calling for his resignation, we've got to ask ourselves whether any putative replacement would do much better. It seems to me that Frist can only be held partially responsible for this whole mess, and that the rest of the responsibility lies squarely at the feet of the very man who would be viewed as a likely replacement - Majority Whip Mitch McConnell. It is, after all, the Whip's main function to ensure party coherence on important votes, which happens to be where Republicans are all too often sorely lacking.

Before we start pushing for Frist to resign, we'd better have someone effective in mind to replace him, or the power vacuum will be something Reid & Co. will have no trouble exploiting. As things stand, we appear to be stuck - like a boulder "stuck" on the edge of a cliff. All too often, such boulders, when un-stuck, tend to go into free fall.

This is a classic law school Justiciability exam question.  The courts, ESPECIALLY the SCT, wouldn't touch this issue with a 10 meter cattle-prod.  This is a political question, meaning that the Senate's internal rules are for them to fight over exclusively.

Its ironic that the makeup of the courts is the reason we are here.

Let's see - the Dems, who have been steadfast in denying votes on the nominees, are now calling for all sorts of compromises.  Liberal media sources like the LA Times and David Broder are warning the Dems to back away.  Frist, McConnell, Rove, and others are publicly saying they have the votes to overturn the filibuster rule.  The Washington Poll poll cited by EconRadical has been thoroughly discredited in many blogs today (poorly worded questions, overly heavy sampling of Dems vs Republicans).  And the nominees that will likely be the test of the filibuster are an African American woman and another woman - the Dems will look like real winners with their base blocking these two.

Frist could still blow this.  But it appears that your reading of the situation is off abase.

While Frist hasn't been stellar, he's been much less appeasing than Lott.

Eliminate the filibuster now. For everything.  Time is of the essence.  Republicans have about 12 months to consolidate their position and ensure their majority in the Legislature and control of the White House  for years to come.  It might be ruthless, but after all, it's the American way.

The GOP ran hard against Tom Daschle, even sending Frist there to campaign against him (which went against Senate tradition). They got they wanted, another seat in the Senate (which of course is good for them), and the take down of the Senate minority leader. The thinking was that a new minority leader would have a learning curve that make him/her ineffective.

But with Harry Reid, that presumption turned out to be incorrect. The attempt to compromise wasn't an attempt at all, but a means to remove the "obstructionist" label from the Dems. It remains to be seen if it will work for the Dems, but sound strategy nonetheless. Poison pill indeed. Reid "wins" no matter if the "compromise" is accepted or not.

Trading Frist for Lott, and Reid for Daschle are two "trades" where the GOP has come out on the losing side. I don't know who I'd want in Frist's place, but he's not the man for the job (IMO).

In any event, Frist can kiss his presidential ambitions goodbye. He's not as likable as GWB, and as a result, too easy to paint as a panderer to the religious right. He may now regret ever accepting the majority leader position.