Redstate

I've been anticipating this. Hagel wants to be a maverick, but to be a real maverick instead of a me-too maverick he has to try to establish product differentiation from the Original Formula Maverick, John McCain.

McCain is against consigning the filibuster to a well deserved and ignominious fate, therefore, Hagel has to be against McCain to become the New Improved Maverick.

then it comes down to Warner and Specter.

If you win, it will be without a single Democratic vote.

We could use another Senate seat.

But a 49% win in 2000 (a good year for Dems despite losing the White House) and a more polarized electorate means a very tough re-election for Nelson.  And the Obstructionist label will aptly apply.  I like Nelson.  But if he puts party over principle, it's time for Nebraskans to have a Senator who represents them better.

as a campaign issue.  You will have your judges, so it won't make a difference.....

Let's play....

<corny gameshow music>

WHO SAID IT?

</corny gameshow music&gt

According to the U.S. Constitution, the president nominates, and the Senate shall provide advice and consent. It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.

That's right kids, its Barbara Boxer back on May 14, 1997.  I'm looking forward to her support of the Republicans on this issue.

but Frist does not.

any day of the week.

there are all kinds of Demcoratic legislation that we would love to pass if we had the chance and did not have to meet a 60 vote threshold.  In fact, the Liberal Los Angeles Time editorial page, now run by Michael Kinsley, wants to get rid of all filibusters because they are anti-democratic.

Once back in power, we could pass a national pro-choice statute, for starters.  We would only need  few moderate Norhteastern Republicans in the house and we have the five RINOs in the Senate who would go for it.  You have no idea all the liberal stuff that you were able to bottle up with filibusters during Clinton.  We may lose this round, but you guys won't look good winning what may end up being a very Pyrric victory.

blowing smoke.  Nelson won in 2000 with Bush at the top of the ticket by 15,000 votes when Bush carried Nebraska by 200,000 votes.  In 2006, the Senate race is the top of the ticket, and last time I checked, Bush's approval rating is headed towards the 30s.

IIRC, I saw a story that Republicans can't even find a candidate (at least three or four, including Tom Osborne, have bowed out of running) -- the only guy running is the 2000 loser, with no enthusiasm whatsoever and on a totally different platform.

Nobody is considering this race a strong contest at the moment.  Do you think that this will change based on the nuclear option vote?  That's fantasy.

grandchildren of that likelihood.

kind of "confidence" can wear thin....

the filibuster in general isn't threatened at all, just the filibuster on judicial nominees (unless I'm missing something and I'm confident that since I've monitored the goings-on and the Redstate threads fairly well I'm not missing something).  So the filibuster for the Dems against Bush's legislative agenda -- as opposed to his nominees -- will still be in order for even this Congress, as for future Congresses.  And, happily, ridiculous policies like the ones you propose would likely not pass the House, and the combination of Senators necessary to push for such ridiculous legislation would likely never reach the liberal critical mass necessary for those to pass because the American people, by and large, DON'T SUPPORT ULTRA-LIBERAL DEMOCRATS.  If the last few cycles haven't shown that, I don't know what it takes....

Your leading presidential candidate, a socialist who tried to nationalize 1/8th of the economy back when her hubby was Prez, is furtively re-casting herself as a "moderate" and trying to find less-offensive ways to talk about the mass slaughter of babies, for crying out loud: your own people realize they have a losing bill of goods when it meets the voting public.

MKS- if the republicans have the ability go get rid of the filibuster through a bare majority- why would they trust Democrats to leave it it place if they needed it in the future?  

say something like that too?

as has been demonstrated by many others every time the filibuster has run against the wishes of the Democrats they have tampered with the rules. It's called "pulling a Kleagle", in honor of its main proponent.

good to hear things are turning out well for you.

proposed eliminating the filibuster by reducing a cloture vote to 50, a bare majority which would make the filibuster completley inoperative.

The reduction from 2/3 to 3/5 still left the filibuster in place.  You guys are threatenting to eliminate it in its entirety.  

If you try to get rid of leg. filibusters, I will oppose.  Heck if Republicans try, I'd oppose.  There is room for compromise and negotiation on legislation.  Judges are a yes/no.  Furthermore, legislation is the purview of the Senate.  Nominations are the executives priviledge that the Senate gets to advise and consent on.  Allowing a minority in the Senate to obstruct the executive appointments is unwise.  Allow a large minority some say in legislation is important.  And I say that knowing that SS reform would be much easier without a filibuster being dangled.

Whats the difference.  In 1975 the democrats used the nuclear option to reduce it from 66 to 60 because the other number was burdensome to them.  If they have the power to lower it- they have the power to lower it as much as they want to.  THe republicans have absolutely no reason to trust that the filibuster would be there if they needed it in the future.

they have never had the need.

In 2000, Republicans lost in MI, WA, NJ, FL, NE and MN in close races.  It was the last time Dems won a Senate showdown and put the Senate at 50-50 for a short time.

Partisanship is on the rise and ballot splitting is dropping.  Popular Governor candidate Osbourne will actually be at the "top of the ticket."  I would love to see Heineman take on Nelson and Gov. Heineman would immediately be the front-runner.  But Mr. Stenberg challenge should not be laughed off so lightly.  The vote total last time was 353,093 (51%) to 337,977 (49%).  With the intensification of partisanship and an electorate more conservative than SD, I think Nelson should be worried.  If he votes to obstruct, he could be Daschled.

Seems Armando at dKos picked up the story here (witness the mistitling of the Omaha World-Herald just as I did on the story here).  So if you want to see some kossites explain their "feelings" on the situation, follow the link.

As stated above, it seems that the liberals hope for a minority veto on judicial nominees rests with Sens. Warner and Specter.  Both must vote for the minority veto for it to succeed.

I forgot MO... we lost MO in a close race as well.  I'd say losing in NE, FL, and MO counts as a bad year for Republican in the Senate.

Senators Hagel and Luger both have some disagreements with the GOP leadership - as do we all - which they may express publicly from time to time (nothing wrong with that so long as they're constructive in their criticism) but we all need to remember that both are loyal Republicans with solid conservative voting records.  

Whatever their own misgivings about the rules for the filibuster, they both recognize that this is ultimately just a tactic by Democrats to stop votes on well-qualified mainstream judicial nominees that would easily pass if brought up for a vote.  They know as we all do that if Democrats are able to get away with filibustering 10 (now 7) Court of Appeals nominees, they'll try it when it comes to appointing replacements for Rhenquist and O'Connor on the SCOTUS.  

Constitutional Option

Don't call it the "Constitutional Option" just because you were told to call it that by the PR flaks from one of the political parties (in this case, the GOP).  

It's been called the nuclear option (no caps, either) since the day it was discovered.  The term was coined by Republican Senator Lott.  I have too much respect for you to see you change your language just because Frank Luntz (or whoever) issued a new memo on the official language of the GOP.

That's good.  I use both interchangably and sometimes even say Nuclear/Constitution.  I don't think its name has any bearing on whether it is the right thing to do.  It could be the Majority Option or the Byrd Option or whatever.  There is no "right" name.

I'm not a fan of his by any stretch of the imagination and while he isn't as reliable as Senators Hagel or Luger, I think that he understands that (a) if the Byrd option fails, it would significantly undermine his effectiveness as Chair of the Judiciary Committee and (b) if he votes against it, he's unlikely to retain that chairmanship.

Also (and maybe I'm mistaken about this) but generally when a Senator makes a "both sides have unclean hands" speech, it seems to that it usually means that they're going to vote with their party anyway but are just seeking political cover in order to appear "independent."  Specter has enough votes to retain the "independent" or "moderate" label and stands to gain more from the goodwill of reaching out to conservatives in his own party, especially if he decides to vote against someone like Judge Pryor when he comes up for a vote on the floor.

Just my $0.02.

Sorry, your buddies do not.  Your position is somewhat anomalous in a good sense.... I often disagree with your base assumptions, but....

The problem is once you have set the precedent--no matter how narrowly you try to define or confine it--others will use it to their benefit.

Although I'm referring to it as the "Byrd option" since that was a significant factor in my decision to change my mind on this.  

BTW: anyone else find it amusing that we're being told to follow whatever Senator Lott calls it when Senate Democrats and their MSM allies are the ones have their own problem with consistency when it comes to opposing and then supporting the filibuster of judicial nominees that have majority support?  

It's almost as funny as the spectacle of so-called "civil rights" groups like the NAACP lining up behind the likes of a former Klansman like Senator Byrd in order to prevent a vote on a well-qualified judicial nominee who happens to be, actually let's be honest, is being targeted for a filibuster because she's also black just as Senate Democrats targeted Miguel Estrada for being Latino.

Frist might survive losing the vote if he argues that he fought the good fight, and was defeated by McCain and the other squishies, but if he let Specter get away with taking the Judiciary chairmanship, then turning on the leadership in a time of need, he'd be toast.  Specter knows this--I think that he's not inclined to climb into the ejector seat for this.

I live in NE and Nelson is history if he votes with the Democratic Obstructionist!  

FYI - Osborne is GOD in this state!  He did not bow out for a run for the Senate, he signed up to run for Governor!  WHEN GOD aka Osborne endorses the Republican candidate for Senate that will be the end of Nelson.  Remember half of 15000 is 7500 votes.  All it will take is 7501 voters to listen to GOD and Nelson knows this!

THe Kossites are funny as Hell!  Made my day to see they even think they are going to lose this!

Senators are not God, and no one considers them such.  Football coaches coach football.  Funny, I can't picture Pete Carroll getting the time of day if he were to run.  Different states, different culture.  Then again we do not have an NFL team in LA--and don't want one, thank you very much.

Osborne coached the NE Cornhusker college team.  

The Cornhuskers are treated here like LA treats the Lakers, Chicago treats the Bulls, NY treats the Yankees.  

I've been here 20 years and I can't explain better than that because I am a transplant here.  

now after Jackson dumped on Kobe--and they are big losers now.  There are simply too many other forms of entertainment competing with sports here.

riddle me this, Batman.

If the question is yes/no on judges and other executive nominations, then why have committees?  What if a committee votes down a nominee who in fact has majority support on the floor?  Is that unconstitutional too?  Shouldn't nominations therefore simply be sent to the floor for a vote?

If your interpretation is correct, the Senate has been operating under unconstitutional rules for over 200 years.  Do you sincerely believe that?

there is no requirement that a negative vote in committee result in rejection. A majority can vote to discharge the nomination.

Of course, this whole line of navel lint picking is wasted effort because it is hard to imagine a circumstance where a committee would reject a nominee where there are enough votes for confirmation. A theoretical possibility but given two parties extremely unlikely.

And committees and their composition are creatures of the Senate Rules which are subject to change by the Senate. They are not Article I requirements or even suggestions.

candidates, why are the Democrats doing this?  Just for kicks, for spite?

You know, I constantly hear this "if these are such bad candidates, surely some Republicans would vote against them."  On the other hand, all the comments here are about how Republicans have to vote the party line or be punished.  How many Republican votes have there been against all of Bush's judicial nominations COMBINED?  Answer:  1.

Do you honestly think that every single solitary judicial candidate Bush puts up is fantastic, incredible, unbelievable, tremendous?  Or is that party loyalty is demanded on every single, solitary vote?  What would a judicial candidate have to do to be out of the mainstream?  Brown wants to undo the entire 20th century's worth of jurisprudence -- no problem, right?  She's great, because Our Fearless Leader put her name up, right?  Oh, and just for kicks, she's a black woman.  Woo hoo, let's have some fun with that, too.

What's the standard?  At what point do even Republicans stop and say, my God, what could he have been thinking?  Or is there no line?  If Bush says it, it must be good.  Is that it?  Is that all there is?

One vote against judicial nominations in five years.  And you guys say Democrats demand party loyalty.  Tee hee.  Good one.

Republicans who spoke so passionately about the sanctity of the filibuster when Clinton was President don't have a consistency problem now that they want to kill it?

Please spare us your sanctimonious tripe.  Both sides are inconsistent, both are hypocritical, but only one side is forcing an institutional crisis and threatening the integrity of the Senate because it can't get its way 100% of the time.  That would be the Republicans, in case you can't figure that out.

but you get my point.

At no point was Phil Jackson a serious political candidate....Being a sports celebrity here is like a big so what?

why send nominations to committees then?  Everyone deserves an up or down vote on the floor -- isn't that the sacrosanct rule you guys are hellbent on protecting?  What role does the committee serve, then?

And in any event, when's the last time a judicial nomination was the subject of a discharge petition?  I'm not 100% sure, but I suspect the answer is never.

Sport Celebs are BIG all over!  

Two points.  First, I'm not sure there is a real point for the committees.  However, second, there is something to be said about recommendations.  A committee could vote a person down.  If a majority still support the nominee, they could discharge him.  It would be a mark that the nominee was contentious.

Brown wants to undo the entire 20th century's worth of jurisprudence

What I think you refer too was not in any of Rodgers Brown COURT opinions.   From what I understand these views are her personal views.  She is ONE Of SEVEN not ONE of ONE making calls on jurisprudence.  

Does that mean you as a lefty should not be able to sit on a Supreme Court because of some of your views?  

You tell us. What would a judicial candidate have to do to be out of the mainstream?  

How far do you want to take it? Because I hate cats I can't sit on a Supreme Court either?  

ever been discharged?  I honestly don't know for sure, but I don't think so.  And even so, if a committee votes against a nominee, certainly in my experience, that's it -- the end, goodbye, pick up your parting gifts on the way out.  Certainly history counts for something in terms of constitutional interpretation, yes?  Or is Scalia & Co. out of bounds on this?

You're flirting with being kicked off.  You are quite insincere and your presence here is not helping build community or discussion.  I'm not going to countenance your post with a response because you aren't going to read it nor do you care for real discussion.

answer the question.  At what point do you draw the line?  Is there one?  From your non-answer, it seems there is no line.  If that's your answer, OK, fine.  Given the voting history and the threats of retaliation for straying, I suspect that's the true answer.

Except, of course, when the shoe is on the other foot.  Then filibustering Paez for his ideology is perfectly OK for Senator Frist.  Gotcha.

Your guys started filibustering willy nilly.  Thanks for putting us in this situation.  And we are still supporters of the filibuster as we have always been... for legislation.

If you don't change your tone and attitude, I'm happy to give you a push.  Last warning.

an institutional crisis and threatening the integrity of the Senate

??????

You are Such a Drama QUEEN!  

Repubs have never asked for 100% comfirmation.  Just a up or down vote on 100% of the nominees.  A simple vote.  How much of an institutional crisis and threatening the integrity of the Senate is a simple vote.  

Will DiFi break a nail, will Harry Reid pee his pants.  I got it Uncle Teddy will miss a round at the bar. Now that would be a crisis!  (this last part is in jest!)

I thought you were a lawyer?  

My point was PERSONAL OPINIONS of the nominees have NO business in the select or confirmation of judges!

GET IT!

to ask where the line is for judicial nominations?  What's wrong with that question?  The argument was made that these are ALL mainstream candidates -- all I want to know is when does a candidate cross the line.  My point is that the votes on judges have been party line across the board -- an important point, I believe.  If the standard is, whoever this President appoints ought to be confirmed, I have a problem with that.  You may disagree.  Your right.  But what's wrong with asking the question?

I am engaging in a debate.  I obviously take a different tack than most of the people here.  I am civil, polite and responsive.  Not a name has been called, not an insult has been hurled.  What is "insincere" about civil disagreement?  For someone who always pleads for respect on Daily Kos, your threat to ban me (someone who has always defended both your "sincerity" and your right to speak there, BTW, including today) is just a wee bit ironic.

"he's great, because Our Fearless Leader put her name up, right?  Oh, and just for kicks, she's a black woman.  Woo hoo, let's have some fun with that, too."

Is not being sincere and is walking on thin ice.  And I wouldn't say anything close to that on dKos because I know I am in someone else's home there; I am a visitor.

If you are actually interested in nomination approval, here is my take.  If a candidate is approved highly by the ABA and has no legal snafus on their record (i.e. practicing without a license is a legitimate objection which applies to one of the judges), they should be approved.  Unfortuantely, beginning with the Senate Democrats voting against Bork, political philosophy is now considered grounds for voting against someone.  That is an unfortunate development and I would hope we can go back to the past.

Assuming that is too much to ask, then Senators can vote yea or nay based on a judge's past record.  If that happens to be on party-lines, so be it.  If all Senators were able to vote their conscience (or their politics), many Red State Dems would vote for these judges and a few Republicans would vote against.  I'd agree to a compromise where both leaders allow their Senators to vote their conscience without repurcussion if the filibuster was diavowed.

If a candidate did not have a legal degree or if they had broken the law or ethics of the law, there is a legitimate concern.  Brown and Owen do not fit into that group.  Thus I defer to the President on their appointment.

Now please explain to me why 41 Senators should have a veto over executive appointments?

With the vast majority of American's saying they believe the country is on the wrong track, that Iraq was not worth it, that they are livid with Congress and that the Presidents' approval rating is only 50 -50 I would say encourage the Republican's to do more and use the nuclear option and anything else they can come up with.

There's nothing like the sweet stintchy aroma of a power grab that gets people exited right when ya think all is well.

Personally, I can still see that boomeranging cement truck, and it is really picking up some speed.

Is that the same cement boomerrang that hit us in 2004?

The one with the Kerry landslide in it and the one that took back the Senate and maybe, just maybe the House too?

In case you forgot, the country thought we were on the wrong track in 2004 as well.  What you surely forgot is that many of those people are talking about a decaying culture, a culture of death, and the spreading of immorality in their eyes.  Furthermore, just because people dislike some policies of the right (Schiavo) doesn't mean they will vote hard left.  If you were running Mr. Clinton or Mr. Lieberman (you're remaining moderates), I'd be worried.

Right now, you're just wearing the tin-foil hat just like liberals did in 2004.  Reality-based community... right.

especially think Schwarzenneger.  That's how football is in NE or OK.  We had J.C. Watts and Steve Largent, both football stars, representing OK for a while.  That was a third of our whole representation.  And if Dems were smart, they'd try to get Blue Dog Dem Barry Switzer to run in OK.  

I really never thought Kerry could defeat Bush for office of the Presidency. And I wan't all that sure about Kerry myself. I did not vote for him, but I probably would have chosen him over Bush.

No, I wan't talking about the past, I sincerely was refering to a series of events that I sense could truly damage the Republican party.

Hey, no doubt that this could be total nonesense in the end. But, I am telling you, I can sense something in the American political spectrum that has the taste of retrospect. And , there is a geniune sense of a power grab right now.

Swinging personal views for effect is not my way, I truly am reflecting something I see. I mean I know you get a sense for things from time to time like everyone else and I can see from your post your intuitive and balanced in your demeanor, but it's a real sense and a real feeling. I can't say I am totally happy about it, I am not. BUt I kinda do this for a living so to speak, and I can see it.

I think the nuclear option is a fools bait Doverspa, and I am personally amazed the Republican's are about to take it, but I'll be the first to conceed if I am wrong, you can count on my being humble in that respect.

Scott Rasmussen has some polling data that should cheer Republicans as zero hour on the Fair Play option approaches.

By a margin of 49%-23%, Americans believe every judicial nominee deserves an up-or-down vote.

By a margin of 57%-25%, Americans believe that the rules should be changed to prevent filibusters of judicial nominees.

If Democrats follow through on their threat and shut down the Senate, it would be an excellent way to help Republicans portray them as obstructionists. By a 55%-25% margin, Americans would disapprove of such a retaliatory strategy by Democrats.

It really isn't fun to be a Democrat these days.

This is a post from Polipundit. Posted by Alexander K. McClure

http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=7726

. . .was sent to the floor without a recommendation after the Judiciary Committee deadlocked (All of the Republican Senators and DeConcini of Arizona voted to approve, all of the other Democrats opposed).  Bork's nomination was sent to the floor in spite of a sizable majority against him in committee.

and although Barry did watch them get a fifth Super Bowl, he also got arrested at an airport because he forgot to take his revolver out of his bag.  The revolver part is not the problem.  But, really, Barry, at the airport?

Wishbone?  And Ahnuld is sui generis--and going down in popularity.  I mean how long could it last in a state that voted for Boxer by 20 points over her pro-life opposition?  

By: Lefty Lawyer If these are mainstream  candidates, why are the Democrats doing this?  

Brown: Brown is anathema to all Democrats.  She is a black woman who recognizes that the Democrat sponsored, rascist policies that promote poverty and segregation are in fact harming the African-American community.  Worse, she is conservative, not beholding to her "betters" in the Democrat party.  Her success would provide an example of the way out of the political apartheid cherished by the democrats.

Owen: Libertarians in Texas were traditionally Democrats, this dates back to at least the War of Northern Aggression-- 'Civil War' some call it.  Although the leadership of the Texas Democrat party joined with the mainstream Democrats some years ago, the elevation of a Republican Libertarian would undermine support of libertarians within the Texas Democrat party.

Saad:  In addition to personally spiting Stabenow, Saad is Semitic.  It is important for Democrats in Michigan to maintain control of Arab and Islamic immigrant voters.  It is hoped that party identification will take hold before the actual ideology of the party is known to the immigrants.  Saad's appointment would establish a legitimatcy for Islamic Republicans.

Pryor:  Roman Catholics are not welcome in the Democrat party unless they abandon their beliefs.  It must be made clear to Catholics that they cannot expect to prosper unless they abandon their reliance on the church in the teaching of morals and philosophy.  More importantly, although Catholic morals more strongly coincide with Republican party positions than with Democrat ones, Catholics have been a solid Democrat constituency.  It is vital to party discipline that any Catholic who openly adheres to his morals AND joins the Republicans be punished.

The rest are the ones the Dems are willing to compromise on, right?  A couple of 'political' footballs in Michigan because Clinton #$%@#%'d Abraham and Bush wouldn't give Stabenow and Levin a pass on it, and the rest are just smoke to disguise the Democrats real intentions and to allow them to offer to do what they would willingly do anyway as a false compromise in exchange for getting some Republicans to go along.

doesn't hurt you much in OK.  And I had totally forgot about that Cowboys stint... as has most of the state is my guess.  His 3 National Championships at OU will still etched into our collective consciousness for our whole lives.  But it's your party.

The Dems are probably smart to run an "Abuse of power" meme on Reps and try to link the Nuclear Option, Schiavo, etc together.  They are also framing it all as a Religious Right issue which is true of Schiavo but not of the Nuclear Option or SS.

I don't think this showdown will register with non-political voters and with political voters it will reinforce their allegiance.  Thus, red states will be more likely to vote Rep and blue state, Dem.  This puts the pressure on Dems in NE, ND, FL, TN, MO, and TX for Senate races (and WV if Byrd retires).  It also makes it difficult for Reps in NJ, PA, RI, MI, and MD.  How it affects MN-style swing states, I'm not sure.

Now a "theme" may be constructed by Dems and the media that helps them in 2006, but most Reps (and increasingly many R-leaning Indys) don't trust the media or politicians.  So I'm not sure they'll buy the media memes as they did in the past.

It is possible that Ds could gain in 2006 and win in 2008.  But I would bet against it as long as Dems don't have a positive agenda.  They are increasingly acting like a permanent minority party saying "no, no, no" without any solutions of their own.  Optimistic, pro-war on terror, patriotic Americans aren't going to abandon Rs for Ds as long as that is the strategy.

I'm not sure I agree that my comment was so offensive, but hey, your house, your rules.  I apologize.  (I will note that many Republicans are trying to make hay out of the fact that Brown is a black woman and Owen is a white woman, claiming that Democrats hate women).

As to your second point, I disagree, up to a point.  I actually think the Thomas Griffith question (practicing law without a license) is ultimately a trifle when compared to some other issues, and that he is one of the nominees who, IMHO, deserves a vote.

I believe that judges should be evaluated as to whether they are within a broad mainstream of the law, and whether they have an appropriate judicial temperament.  I can assure you that being smart and being learned do not in and of themselves make good judges.  Temperament matters.  That doesn't mean that because I disagree with a nominee on legal issues, I won't vote for him or her.  Bush is entitled to appoint moderate to conservative judges.  Clinton should have been allowed to appoint liberal to moderate judges -- the Republican Senate didn't have quite the same deferential view of the executive's prerogatives from 1995-2001.

I very much like your view that Senators should be free to vote on judges, unhindered by party pressures and loyalties.  I also think it's not the way it works these days.  I also believe that the Republican record is worse than the Democratic record -- 1 elephant senator has voted against one nominee in four years.  How many Democrats have supported Bush's nominees?  Lots and lots and lots.  I believe, respectfully, that if Democrats saw moderate Republicans willing to vote their "conscience" (your word) on judges, and that there was a realistic chance to defeat some of the more extreme nominees, you'd see fewer filibusters.  I also think that if some of the prior rules were still in place, allowing for home state holds and blue slips on occasion, you'd see almost no filibusters.  That's not even getting to the question about the nature of some of Bush's appointees.

But look at it this way.  If you're in the minority, and you have seen the old rules stripped away, and you see the majority party acting in lock-step loyalty to the executive regardless of the qualifications of the nominees, then what do you do in the extreme cases?  You filibuster.  Wouldn't you?  Didn't some Republicans filibuster Paez, on ideological grounds?  Wasn't Frist one of them?  You can't compare by saying that was one, this is seven, because how many judges got shot down by means other than the filibuster under Clinton?  The answer is 62.  So it's not 7-1, it's 62-7, because the rules are different.

So yes, we have differences, but you and I are discussing them, not shouting slogans at each other.  The Senate debate in this matter has been spectacularly unhelpful to anyone trying to sort out what's really going on.

unless you are prepared to argue that somehow the 60-or-so Clinton nominees who were blocked by various means over his 2-terms as President is somehow beyond what has historically happened to Presidents in the last year of their terms, then I really think you need to quit whining about the past, particularly when you consider that the reverse of the current situation is not 1995-2000, but rather 1993-1994.  I believe you'll find Clinton's appointment rate for that period to be quite stellar.

after I gloat about the Cowboys sweeping the Redskins--again.

why are the Democrats doing this?  Just for kicks, for spite?

Probably because so much of the Democrats' agenda, particularly as it relates to social issues, relies on the courts rather than persuading a majority of their fellow citizens that it might be a good idea to do things like change the definition of "civil marriage," support partial birth abortion, oppose parental notification, etc.

Having judges who don't share those views but instead agree with the majority of Americans that these are (a) not good positions and/or (b) that it's not the role of the courts but of the legislature to make these sorts of policies is going to be a threat to much of their agenda and Democrats and their base realize this.

I don't think the public is as swayed by party as much as the Dem's and Rep's might or like to  think. I sense a much greater movement for compromise than I did before and I do think the Dem's a doing a reasonably good job at promoting this Religious Right for power thing.

All I can go on is tradition and examples from the past, these do not represent any final thinking, just an example, I would like to hear some of yours as well of course.

Firstly and namely, prohibition. It was began by mostly Religious Right Conservatives around the suburbs of Detroit if my memory is still good. In a few short years it was repealed. Without going into too much detail so we don't argue semantics, there was a reaction against the "goody-too-shoes" mentallity and the agenda ultimately failed.

With McCarthyism, that too seemed to lose it's affect when finally someone stood up and said the whole thing has gotten out of control.

Now, if the Dem's can establish a similar thinking toward current initiatives, then there will be a backlash effect. If the Republican's can successfully defeat the impression then the affect will be greatly reduced if any affect at all occures. But the format is there, it has presented itself, and you can bet they will jump all over it, and it might turn out to be more difficult to defeat than was first realized.

I'm absolutely sure you too can see the risk, and I understand that you also believe the risk is worth it as the impression most likely will be defeated in the public eye, nonetheless, the threat is there and it still is alive.

This isn't about the opposition party, this is about a minority of Senators holding a veto over appointments.

Clinton got less judges through because a majority of Senators opposed his nominees.  They held them up in different ways (some of which I am happy to see are no longer valid ways), but all were opposed by a majority to my knowledge.

These 10 (3 have already withdrawn) judges are opposed by a minority of Senators.  How many of Clinton's nominees had majority support and were never confirmed?  That is the apples to apples comparison.

If Dems had won a majority in November, I wouldn't be arguing that they have to let every appointee through.  I'd argue they should allow an up-or-down vote on every nominee and vote him/her down.  That's still the case.  And the abuse of the filibuster seems to have led us to the point where it will be banished for judicial nominees.  Impressive to see a minority party overreaching, but that seems to have happened.

Re: Clinton got less judges through because a majority of Senators opposed his nominees.

???

That makes no sense. If a majority opposed his nominess then why didn't the Senate just vote them down? Why were all sorts of cutesy parliamentary tricks used to prevent a floor vote? From what I remember  Clinton's nominees had majority support, and a minority of the GOP (sometimes just a single senator, like Jesses Helms) was determined to prevent confirmation.

Yes, if a law passed banning all abortions or prohibiting something that most people do on a day-to-day basis (like alcohol), it would backlash.  But nothing like that is close to happening nor do most Republican support it.  Having one more conservative or constructionist judge on the Supreme Court does not create a backlash.  There is some argument that Roe being overturned would create a backlash, but I think it is hard to determine what would happen.  Dems fed the scare tactic that abortions would all be outlawed if that happens, which is untrue.  The legislatures could pass compromises and "blue" states would probably keep most abortions legal.  It would definitely shake things up in some ways.  Besides Schiavo, nothing the Rs have down is really upsetting most of the country.

I think the continued fragmentation of the media and the partisanship rising in D.C. will continue to push voter partisanship especially in a non-Presidential year.  It would take unusually strong nominees to overcome home field advantage right now.  I see possibilities in MD (Steele), WA (Rossi), and NE (Nelson - incumbent).  Otherwise, Dems are focused on blue and swing states (RI, PA) and Reps are focused on red ones and swing states (ND, NE, FL, WV, and TN).  Both are eyeing MN.

As for 2008, it is too far away to predict much.  But if Roe falls, I think Guiliani's stock goes way up.  In fact, I think he'd be the favorite immediately in both the primary and general.

I was not old enough to follow in detail.  But many were held up in committee by party-line votes because the majority opposed them.

is true.  Look at the floor votes.  How many Clinton appointees failed to be confirmed because they lost floor votes?  I think the answer is none.  It was the cutesy holds, blue slips and simply failing to give nominees votes (either on the floor or in committee) that derailed all of Clinton's 62 judges who, let's remember, didn't get a vote.  Not lost an up or down vote, but never got a vote -- sometimes even in committee.