Redstate

Watching what you have written over the last several months that I have been reading your entries, I am absolutely amazed at what you have just written. And, buy no means is it my intent to be demeaning or derogatory in any way, but I must say, your the first of those who are very pationate here at RedState too see a more important issue down the road concerning this entire event I think.

I too was becoming amazed at what I once described to Dovers as a "Fools Bait Debate" when the so called "nuclear option" degree was announced. I truly saw no benefit whatsoever in allowing the Democrates to fool and splinter the Republican base and get them posturing in such a way that the public kinda sees this big bully with a tree branch trying to hit a little kid over the head for her candy.

Quite honestly I just watched in amazement and thought, "No way, they would never be that unwise as to take that bait", and they almost did, WOW!!!

Those center moderates you describe many times will vote their gut and have very little, if any party affiliations. This particular group does indeed, in my opinion, have a centered, highly evolved admiration for the checks and balance systems described to them when they were still in gradeschool. There is a sense in all of us, whether Dem's, Rep's, Indy's or other, that we have a higher obligation to that system than any party, it runs in our blood as American's, we sense it's the base of our freedom, and that vein run's deep.

That very large group will mostly defend the tradition no matter what people say about it in the debate.

To see the great risk as you do, I truly believe leaves no doubt in my mind that to your core, you have the ability to be honestly objective without going off on some wild goosechase for an agenda or issue that could not tender any benefit at all. To me, that gives you 25 more years of wisedom than I had previously assumed. Poor assumption.

Trevino I believe you are exactly correct in what you have said here.

And, to be totally honest, I am sad that someone finally saw the cliff before the party took some hard front end damage.

Please Please Please

Do not turn this blog site into a forum for people who have no idea what they are talking about.  Not one thing changed as a result of this DEAL, with the exception that the nonintellectual American voters think that a compromise was reached.  When in truth all responses that were on the table and being used by both parties still stand.  Who pray tell is going to decide when a violation of the agreement has been violated.  The Supreme Court?  Give me a break.  Harry Reid has exceeded Ted Kennedy in the Dumb or Dumber role.  As soon as the Democrats don't like a nominee, they will filibuster, shortly followed by the Republicans threatening to use the Constitutional option. Both sides are being disingenuous.

One very important thing quite obviously has changed: the GOP Senate leadership now has a face-saving out.  And they will take it.

That the same impasse may crop up down the road doesn't change this.

I can vote "conservative".  I can work for "conservative" candidates.  I can contribute to "conservative candidates and causes.

When the "conservatives" win, and it comes down to crunch time, though?  "Oh, dear me.  Let us not stand anywhere near any principles or take any action that would make us look less than 'mainstream' to the WaPo or NYT."

And those of us who worked to put the Republicans in the position they were (past tense, now) in so that they could make something happen?  We just got kicked to the curb again.  If McCain, Snowe, and suchlike are the people who are actually running the Republican Party, they've left me.

And based on this one, they do appear to be the wheel horses now.  The Republican Party just informed me that, having secured my vote for all of these years by hanging the carrot in front of me, they don't plan on giving it to me anyway.

I hope they don't expect me to haul much more of their freight, though.  I can see how it is.

If the Senate is all about face saving and not doing the people's business,  God help us all.

I find myself thinking this morning that public participation in a Republic is not the one-sided benefit we might have imagined.

Thanks to the Internet, there are now armed camps of loud moonbats assembled on both sides of The Big Ditch. Whatever else this is, it is a force pushing toward mob rule... not a good thing.

The fact that we have mobs of approximately equal size pushing in opposite directions does not greatly comfort me. Mobs are scary no matter what they are doing, for they can go off in bizarre directions at any moment.

At the height of the Schiavo frenzy, I was stunned to see the number of people who were ready to take, erm, extra-legal action to do what God would do if God had all the facts. At one point in the proceedings, some Militia Nut in Wisconsin or someplace was talking about sending his 'troops' down to liberate Mrs. Schiavo. There were people I previously thought sane who were cheering at this news.

The worst part of it was, a lot of this pitchforking was coming from ignorance. This wasn't just a mob, it was an ignorant mob, which is the scariest kind. The speed with which these people turned on, and vowed to stab, Governor Jeb Bush — who had done virtually everything anyone could ask, within the law, to accommodate them — was hard to watch. But he would not assume dictatorial control over the State's enforcement machinery, and for this he was a lout and a brigand. This while some of the most egregiously bad lawyering ever seen on Earth was taking place right under their noses. And for this they blamed the courts, and the judges.

Now we see some of the same stuff here, and on both sides.

I try to be mindful of the fanatic's role in history, and so participate in a certain amount of fanatacism myself, as a way of adding to the wind blowing in my direction. But what I'm learning is that I have to be equally mindful of the Law of Large Numbers, which ought to tell me that when the wind reaches hurricane force, the average IQ of the blowers will be 100, and the place will be full of dull normals in possession of torches and pitchforks. And so I need to go back and re-assess this Internet Activism thing, and ask myself just where this is headed. "Off a cliff" is not what I had in mind.

Yesterday I saw a poll result which told me that "a deal" was going to happen. The poll itself is bogus — it's that CNN one taken among adults, and over a weekend — in the sense that we can't trust the absolute numbers. But the one result I do trust (and believe is showing up in the parties' private polls as well) is that neither side was winning this thing. It was coming off as a bunch of spoiled children on both sides staging a tantrum, and so the loser was "Congress in General."

So I figured that while Frist and Reid would publicly continue to wave the bloody shirt for their respective Mobs of Moonbats, both of them would be conspiring behind the scenes to "make this go away."

And so it did.

And now I think the rest of us have to ask ourselves what role we are playing in creating an environment where this becomes the only way out.

I fear we might be caught in a classic "Prisoner's Dilemma" game here. If either side stops throwing gas on the fire, but the other guys keep fanning their flames, the other guys win. And so both sides continue to stoke the fires, until all is consumed.

Well, the largest egos have prevailed.  The comity of the House of Lords remains intact.

Please note that the issue was not judicial nominations.  Quite simply, the Lords and Ladies didn't want some backwoods cowboy and those unwashed hicks tell THEM what should be done.  Look for representatives of the new Quorum of the Twelve to visit the fawning media outlets to bestow some wisdom and blessing this weekend.

Can Sainthood be far behind?

Seolach

How can we reasonably expect Reid's personal (and lukewarm would be appropriate here) beliefs on abortion to manifest as policy in the Senate?

The right-wing zealots over at the Washington Post saw this exactly the way I did:

The bipartisan negotiators, who signed a two-page "memorandum of understaidng," have the votes both to prevetn judicial filibusters without banning them and to defeat efforts to invoke the nuclear option, regardless of the views of their Democratic and GOP colleagues, the White House and outside groups on the left and right. The action represent an unusual attempt to wrest power from the leadership.

We've gone from being run by 45 senators to being run by 14. I would have preferred the way it was before this deal went through.

with your views here, other than (minor quibble) I would not altogether characterize Iraq as a "disaster". But far too much drama was expended on this matter, and we shoud lall hope that nothing calamitous occcurs with the economy or the War on Terror in the next few months since the government (meaning the majority party) will then stand under the accusation of having fiddled while Rome burned.

above was meant in response to the diary item itself not to Nachos' words.

I had to read that post twice to make sure I understood you correctly.

I don't have much to add other than the deal is certainly not viewed uniformly as a Democratic victory.  Not everybody over at Kos was doing the Ewok dance after the compromise was announced.  But I can't agree with your premise that maximalism is unhealthy for the body politic, and that we've wasted quite a bit of time on lower priority issues, and not just because of Republican leadership.  The Democrats have not been effective at holding the Republicans to the course, and have often added to the misdirection with their own pet issues.  But bravo for calling a spade a spade.  

Now I'm just waiting for someone to accuse you of trying to be a media darling....

Since the RNC had threatened any Republican dissenter with no/little support during their re-election, maybe the moderate boys decided to push back. Only compromise and respect for the minority prevailed and not strong armed extortion.
I am not proud of the words of Harry Reid during all this. As a matter of fact, the leadership of both parties seems to have lost vision of the best interests of the country.

"Dissent is the purist form of Patriotism"

Of course, the best possible outcome would have been for this to never have been made an issue at all: the President was having a fair number of his nominees pushed through, and there was not, to my mind, any particularly unusual Democratic obstructionism underway. Certainly it was annoying to see particular nominees held up on procedural grounds: but really, folks, welcome to the United State Senate.

While I agree with many of your points, the implication that what this event represented was not an unusual degree of obstructionism, historically speaking, simply does not stand.  Anyone with a full knowledge of the history of Judiciary Committee can shoot that down in a second.  

Blue slips do not equate to full bore Senate filibusters, and but for the restraint of the more moderate members of the caucus, there is a laundry list of nominees from 1992-2000 who would have been filibustered on the floor had such action been - in the minds of the GOP leadership - constitutional.

Only the most hardened left continues to make that historical argument with a straight face.  The mainstream Senators on the Democratic side conceded that talking point a long time ago.

"For the moment, all we can do is cross our fingers, thank God that the Senate Democrats have a pro-life leader to take the sting out of defeat, and hope that the much-reviled "moderates" can, on occasion, save us from ourselves."

I cannot believe anyone that calls themselves a Republican wrote that. I just can't.

Strong leadership, based on principle, is why we are in the majority now (see George W Bush). I am glad the filibuster is saved, because gutless pandering and lack of leadership will put us in the minority very soon.

Either you have the majority and you lead, despite the whining, or you don't. Moderates are good for absolutely nothing but grabbing headlines - just wait till one tries to run for President. You, and they, will see.

I can hear it now "I am against abortion personally, but I will do everything in my power to make sure it stays the law of the land."

If Reid is a pro-lifer, then I am a donut. Wait, that sounds familiar...oh well.

"can't agree more with your premise...."

side here in virtually all particulars save that Frist is no longer a serious contender in 2008.

This was a case of a tie, if not defeat, being snatched from the jaws of rout.

On the positive side, it is difficult to imagine the Democrats not applying the "extraordinary circumstances" clause to any Supreme Court nominee to the right of Ruth Bader Ginsburg so hopefully we will get a chance to revisit the Grand Bargain after some of the seven who signed on realize that last night they were told "I'll love you forever and your check is in the mail."

Pretty much have to disagree with you wholesale here, mon ami.

This "maximalist" vision was about one thing, and one thing only. This battle, from both sides, from the start, four years ago, was about one thing, and one thing only. It wasn't about the interpretation of the Commerce Clause, or the application of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, or the Voting Rights Act, or whether the Supremacy Clause applies to health insurance nominally similar to ERISA plans but issued by the State of Arkansas.

This has been a proxy war over Supreme Court appointments, and Roe, Casey, and their dark progeny. The rest, while interesting, and possibly tangentially important, are not what have the trillion acronyms pouring sums of time and treasure into this battle.

And from the Republican side, this has become about holding the party line -- a little thing we used to call "Party discipline," back in the day -- for those inevitable Supreme Court nominees. Now, thanks to John Saint McCain, there is no party discipline. The cherished, hallowed, constantly-changing-but-never-mind-that freaking filibuster is preserved so that some future Republican can send a piece of paper up to the presiding officer and indicate his profound disagreement with Subsection 5 of the Omnibus Spending Bill Robert Byrd's Brain (still D-WV), in its special glass jar, has pushed through -- oh, and so we, stupid, brainless, easily led "values voters" or "voters of faith" can keep getting strung along with the promise that the whole abortion edifice will be knocked down. Just not now. Maybe 2011? Is that ok?

Mark me on this: We were just sold down the river. Because now, when a Supreme Court nominee who will demolish Roe, who will replace Sandy Windvane O'Connor, comes before the Senate, and Ted "Catholic for One Hour on Sundays Only" Kennedy begins his enactment of this much-hallowed, all-be-freaking-praised tradition, this group of losers will not say, "Well, the Democrats are in their right to filibuster here, because this nominee opposes Roe." Heavens no. That'll lose the stupid sheep who vote in the national primaries and upon whom they rely for millions of $20 and $30 donations. No, they'll say, "The Democrats are in their right here because this guy believes in natural law, and that's outside the mainstream," or "This lady opposes affirmative action, and that's outside the mainstream," or "She once wrote a law review article indicating that Congress's Interstate Commerce power is limited where four-trailer trucks are concerned," or somesuch nonsense.

And so instead of one of the nominees about whom I, and, let's be honest, one heck of a lot of voters cared so much when we registered our ballots, we get Souter. Again. Because the Party won't be able to impose discipline on the "moderates." So not one appointee who'll actually do what we demanded -- the only thing we demanded in return for our votes -- makes it to the bench.

I'm a conservative, and a Catholic. I'm simply in love with tradition (and Tradition). But a tradition that provides cover for the continued slaughter of millions is not worth preserving, especially one that's been susceptible to change since its inception.

In the last election, I gave money I simply didn't have to Republican Senate candidates just so I could see the whole edifice of death knocked back one peg. I didn't expect a Human Life Amendment. I didn't expect Congressmen to grow a pair anywhere it counted. All I expected was that the jellyfish in the Senate would go to war over two or three appointees to the Court. Period. And now that won't happen. Period.

Who'll rally the moderates now? John "Those Pro Life Folks Creep Me Out" McCain? Please. He knows what the Party as a whole knows, but which they might have been willing to overlook just this once: That the instant Roe and its dark band are in the ground, so is the unswerving commitment of sheep like me to the national Party. Toss him aside. Oh, sure, when the Straight Talk Express II: The Wrath of the Edgar-Suit makes its way across the country starting in two years, he'll decry the latest Supreme Court ruling that requiring a physical exam before providing a second-trimester abortion runs afoul of the vital liberty interest enunciated in Casey.

To Hell with the war, the debt, the dollar, the deficit, hallowed Senate tradition, and everything else. Legalized abortion on demand just got another ten years of life. Ten million more dead for a Senate "tradition." Mark me on this.

Not. One. More. Penny.

Well, well put. We have the Senate, the House, the Presidency and we still cannot control the preeners or govern effectively.

I wish LBJ would come back as a Republican and handle this Senate garbage...

What I wish I could have written, were I not so apoplectic this morning.

There is no way to put enough Maybelline on this pig, we were rolled.

Would that I was possessed of the eloquence to phrase it that politely, too.

It's hard for me to comment much, because most of my potential commentary wouldn't be particularly suitable for posting here.

I am wondering, though.  Is Frist French?  He surely managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory here.  And stood there grinning and waving the official white flag.  

The whole Republican side of the Senate looks awfully Froggish to me right now, though.

I have to say I'm split on Josh's piece.  I agree and at the same time disagree.  I was in favor of scrapping the filibuster for judges.  At the same time I can see that in the future the Dems could have an advantage because of it.

As well, I do agree that should this have happened, the Senate leadership would have felt like they had done all they needed to do for conservatives and would do no more.

I guess where I get off Trevino's train (I like the sound of that) is on the slippery slope argument -- scrapping the judicial filibuster would scrap it everywhere.  Perhaps that was my lawschool training where my torts professor drilled in to us that the two most common meritless arguments in law are the "it will open the floodgates" argument and the "slippery slope" argument.  Scrapping the judicial filibuster, I do not think, leads to scrapping the filibuster completely.

I remain torn in my opinion.  I do agree that this scraps Frist's candidacy, and that makes the deal worth it.

First, in the inds of many of us who regard ourselves as social conservatives first and foremost, this is a kick in the teeth, a knee to the groin, and a pat on the butt accompanied by an admonition to take one for the team.  What team?  A team that regards social security reform as more pressing than even a few degrees of retardation of what we like to term the judicial usurpation of normal politics?  Please.  Social security has about as much moral resonance as which car I drive to work this morning; judicial usurpation has everything to do with the nature and character of our nation and its ostensible status as a republic.  Do we want a republic, or an American analogue of the unaccountable Brussels eurocracy?  THAT'S the issue.  Do we govern ourselves through our representatives, or will every meaningful issue be decided, as by oracle, from some bench, somewhere?

And on this question, the Republicans elected to punt.  Go to the back of thee bus, social conservatives, just be sure to write your checks and pull the levers for us come election day.  Anyone else tired of being regarded in the way the Dems seem to regard the African-American vote: you've got nowhere else to go, so you have to tolerate betrayal upon betrayal upon perfidy upon treachery?

And the remarks about maximalism?  This, even more than the other defenses of the betrayal, are what rubs salt in the wounds this morning.  Maximalism?  As in "my way or the highway"?  Who is saying that?  Social conservatives, who want just a little movement on some of their issues?  Or all of these defenders of "vaunted traditions" who want to have everything: their judicial picks AND the preservation of a tradition - a fricking procedure! - that will disappear as soon as the Dems find it expedient to consign it to the ashbin to which we ought to have sent it, rather than continuing as an option against the next Ginsburg-foreign-law-trumps-the-constitution type?  

And those arguments about how abolition of the judicial filibuster imperils the legislative filibuster!  How, exactly?  This is a ridiculous argument coming from anyone concerned to uphold the traditions of the Senate, which for 200 friggen' years allowed the latter and not the former!  If the traditions made the distinction before, they can continue to make it, so called "logic" be damned.  

And,, please, let us have no unctious rhetoric about holding the Dems' feet to the fire on this deal.  We need to disabuse ourselves of the useless and maleficent illusion that the consistency or inconsistency of our electoral foes matters.  It does not; it never has and it never will.  What matters is the perception of WHY they are consistent or inconsistent at any one moment: the ends and objectives which inspire and justify their maneuvers.  This matter is inside baseball to 75% of the electorate, so the only perception that matters is that of the bases of the parties: the Dems will filibuster now to protect Roe and Casey; Republicans, in theory, in some alternate or possible world, can break the filibuster now and try to resurrect it later in order to rein in the lunacies of the judiciary.  Procedure is a tool, not the substance of policy, and by treating it as something sacred, we ensure that we will continue to take the shaft and have our scalps taken.  We can learn this machiavellian lesson or continue losing.  Forever.

the filibuster is not allowed on budgetary bills and it is not allowed when voting in conjunction with the War Powers Act. So this is hardly a slippery slope.

Ideally, internet activism would help at least transform an ignorant mob into a knowledgeable one. Then, armed with information, people could (in theory at least) evaluate for themselves where they stand. Of course, some sites are more aware than others of the difference between imparting knowledge and talking points, RS IMHO usually being among the best in this regard.

Thank you so much for writing so passionately and yet eloquently.  Sadly for me, I did not hear of this surrender (I'm sorry, "compromise") until I was in the car and driving to work this morning and am therefore recovering from nearly driving into a bridge abutment.

BTW, for the economic conservatives out there who may not be moved as Thomas is regarding abortion, see this as the expansion of "affirmative action" and other anti-Constitutional affronts for another decade and see if that gets your knickers in a twist.

If Pat Buchanan (on the Imus in the Morning program today - which is precisely when I heard of this "deal") is to be believed, we had 51-votes for the Byrd Option as of yesterday (Monday) morning.  Thus, we had victory - the restoration of the Constitutional treatment of nominees and the return of 214-years of Presidential prerogative toward Article II appointments.  With that in mind, to suggest that this surrender (sorry again, "compromise") is anything short of a full-blown retreat on those principles is to be in denial, plain and simple.

Therefore, John McCain has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory - and I (a Massachusetts resident) will if necessary spend the entire winter of 07-08 in New Hampshire reminding Republican primary voters of that very fact.  I will remain a registered republican only so long as doing so will allow me to help defeat McCain in the primaries - then I'm out - for good.

In the meanwhile, the GOP will not get one more hour of my uncompensated labor, they will not get one more phone call on behalf of some candidate I've never heard of, they will not benefit from any letters to the editor, they will not receive a single recruit on my behalf, and yes - not another penny of my hard-earned and over-taxed money.  Not.  One.  Penny.  More.

I can't get past the idea that it was a mistake to compromise on this at all. If Saad and Myers were such poor choices, they can be debated on the floor and voted down as necessary. Clearly, there are enough willing defectors from the party line to assure that much. In the meantime, we've gained almost nothing.

The only upsides I can see that wouldn't have occurred if the constitutional option were exercised are the preservation of the filibuster (probably until the next Democratic majority, actually, if not sooner, when the inevitable judicial filibuster happens) and that this really ought to dispel the bizarre myth that the Republican party has any crafty Machiavels in leadership at all.

If this is a victory, it just might be a Pyrrhic one.

Truly, this is the best analysis of the whole mess I've read here.

You must surely understand why it must be so, Gengisdon.  Conservatives have lived under their thumb in essence since 1933, and having risen to power in the last 11 years, we find we have no REAL power as long as the imperial judiciary still trumps our every move. So as long as one stone lies upon another......

But better to lose to him -- and I use "lose" in the sense employed by the supporters of this boondoggle -- than the alternatives.

I cannot believe anyone that calls themselves a Republican wrote that.

I prefer "conservative" to "Republican," thanks.

Strong leadership, based on principle, is why we are in the majority now (see George W Bush).

Oh, good God.  Really.

Moderates are good for absolutely nothing but grabbing headlines - just wait till one tries to run for President.

You certainly could use some disabusing about the current occupant of the White House.

All that is required in response is to point out that any connection drawn between this fight and the fight against Roe v. Wade is a non sequitur.  Believe me, as I said in the post -- if I thought this was really about a decisive pro-life blow, I would have been behind it.  It was not: it was an overreaching power play that deserved its end.

Sorry, but you are far, far, far too optimistic about the party leadership here.

....many of us who regard ourselves as social conservatives first and foremost, this is a kick in the teeth, a knee to the groin, and a pat on the butt accompanied by an admonition to take one for the team.

Yes, I know.  And that's a real pity, especially considering how only now, in the fifth year of the Administration, are you (collectively, not you personally) waking up to the fact that that's pretty much all you're getting -- or have ever gotten.

Do we want a republic, or an American analogue of the unaccountable Brussels eurocracy?

The demonization of the judiciary in this manner has got to stop.  It is immensely stupid that we are refighting the battles of the 1790s, with ourselves in the roles of the Jeffersonian democratic absolutists -- suspicious of judges and republican institutions.

"overreaching power play"

I agree with the bulk of your argument, but no one should have any illusions about what has historically and constitutionally been the standard operating procedure for judicial nominees for more than two hundred years.  

Attempting to enforce this standard  may have been pursued in the wrong way (as I believe it has been), but one side is focused on defending the historical standard here, and one side is not.

not social conservatives.  Republicans have been in power for 11 years.  The Republican party has 55 votes in the Senate, not social conservatism.  Parties are not single-issue voters.  It was not the judiciary that "trumped" your move here.

Perhaps it is time to sharpen the long knives...we've got the welcome center set up over in our tent...

for the compliment.

Obviously I defer to you in your familiarity with Senate procedure.  However, if what the Democrats were doing was according to the rules of the Senate, I find it irrelevant that they may have applied those rules in a novel manner.  It's still an option that was -- and is -- open to all.

Well, at least it is no longer Reid's call on the filibuster.  It is now in the hands of Landrieu, Nelson, Salazar, and Pryor who all face red state voters in their elections.  That alone will lower the incidents of filibusters along with the higher (or the original) bar of "extraordinary circumstances."  I'm willing to see if this was able to put the filibuster back where it was wrt to nominees: very rarely used.

Were it so... a welcome tent... I'll believe it when I see it.  Specifically when someone denounces his statement that "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for."  Nice welcome tent.

I hate to disagree with you, but Landrieu and Pryor are not up again until 2008 and Salazar isn't up until 2010.

I seriously doubt any of them is concerned about facing "red" voters and are more concerned about getting more "deep blue" money by preserving the filibuster.

Pryor and Landrieu will have tough races in 2008 and it always helps them to be able to argue they are fighting for "moderation" in the Senate.  Ditto the Maine ladies and the Ohioans.

I think they all keep their re-elections in mind.

why on earth? So we give more cover to a party that holds in its platform the principle that innocents don't matter - and are to be simply tossed aside as a manner of convenience? I think not.

That ax has got be getting dull it's been ground so much.  He certainly didn't say he hates former Republicans and what they stand for.  I think Dean has retracted/clarified that statement since it was made - you can even see that in the lovely post on RedState mocking him for mistakenly saying OBL when he meant Hussein.  Anyway, it's a mountain out of a molehill and reflective of the low level of political discourse we have to suffer through these days.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I know someone will) - but which nominees from the White House do you feel substandard, that wouldn't be a gain in the cause of life to see on the bench?

that Graham has one of these, too.

So we're wrong to argue and organize around the principle that hard core leftwing judges doing from the bench what Democrats failed to do at the ballot box?

Ceratinly Pryor and Landrieu will have tough races (Landreiu barely survived in 02 and I'm sure she took notice of Vitter's 1st ballot win last year) - but then why did they agree to take your marching orders from Teddy Kennedy (i.e.: sign-up for the filibuster) in the first place?

And while I'll grant you the RINOs from ME, I doubt that DeWine and Georgie are nearly as vulnerable in OH as any of the Demos are in the Red States.

And, I might add, the constitution.  Which obviously overrules the Senate rules, which frankly, consist primarily of traditions.

That is what the debate was all about, in policy terms: whether we ought to follow the constitution or not.  It was simply an unprecedented situation.  It is fine to say that an option is open, but saying it does not make it so.

I have always known this; I only fell prey to the illusion that, perhaps, things would change as we repeatedly delievered the mail for the party.  Guess I was wrong.

I'm not going to take lectures on the proper manner of addressing the judiciary; what has to stop in this country is the unnatural and inordinate deference accorded the judiciary, regardless of the nature and content of the decisions they render.  Courts that conjure, from the nothingness of pure theory, rights hitherto inconceivable, cite foreign law and precedent, and annouce themselves the arbiter of the national conscience, such that, were they to reverse even a decision so baldly risible as Roe, we would no longer understand ourselves as a people, have lost the claim upon our respect.  It is immensely stupid that vast swathes of the Republican Party, and even the Conservative movement itself, continue to proceed as though there is something natural and even virtuous in the present arrangement, whereby judges can remove from democratic deliberation any issue which comes to resonate with the fevered delusions of the cultural left.  It is stupider still that some apparently believe this to be so inevitable that we may as well go along to get along.

Does our Constitutional system envision the present role of the courts?  No?  Then let us dispel the superstition of judicial supremacy.  Yes?  Is that a bug or a feature? If the former, let's fix it; if the latter - welcome to the left.  That's their philosophy.  

And please, don't accuse me of suspicion of republican institutions; nothing in the jurisprudence of the modern judiciary to which I object is an outgrowth of republican institutions as established at the Founding.  If they are, then the living constitution must be the real one, and we must be obliged to reverence its oracles.  But asking me, and others, to speak more reverently of  courts which either deform our system or persistently act against the interests we seek to vindicate in law - this, I humbly submit, you have no right to ask.

the judiciary is immune from criticism?

If you are willing to take to position that Roe and a dozen other cases were anything less than judicial overreach you are welcome to it. But transmuting criticism of a branch of government into "demonization" and awarding the status of philosopher-kings to distinctly political appointees is a bit much.

Quite honestly, if we aren't willing to fight to bring the judiciary into line then nothing else that matters is going to happen.

....being more pro-life than Republican at bottom, I prefer to encourage the ascent of pro-lifers in all parties.  Just a personal preference, of course.

....that it was worth it for the pro-life cause to shoot its bolt here, rather than on a Supreme Court appoointment.  That's the real question.

is that you call judges like Souter and O'Conner hardcore leftwingers.

But only if it matters, and isn't used simply as a fig leaf to do more damage.

I agree with this posting. Frist and company got outmanuvered. 14 people , who if they stick together will run the Senate.

Frist should have called the bluff, given the Dems a secret ballot anything to show that Reid and company did not have the stroke.

He gave up to much and got smacked down as the  top dog.

Though whether Reid's personal conscience on the matter is going to have any sway on him as leader has yet to be seen.

Unfortunately, he appears to be in the pocket of NARAL thus far.  Ugh.

I have no problem attacking and countering left-wingers in any position.  It is when those attacks advance arguments that the legitimate powers of the judiciary per se are morally wrong and must be curbed that we've gone badly wrong.  And frankly, we've been in that territory for some time.

This was an argument supposedly settled in the Founders' era.  Thinking back, it has only been reopened when Andrew Jackson decided he wanted to exterminate some Indians; when Southern racists chafed at being forced to behave in a civilized manner; and when FDR decided he wanted total control to remake American society.  It is to our discredit that we've reopened it again.

It matters more.  Filibustering a judicial nominee is ahistorical and unconstitutional.  But filibustering a Supreme Court nominee takes a whole new level of gall on the part of the pro-choice left (which, btw, includes 3 of the 7 "mavericks").  

And if the nominee is solid and above reproach, there is no question in my mind that the Supreme Court is the point to have this fight.

Comparing current work to reform or reign in the judiciary by doing what we can to get pro-life judges on the bench to your litany of horrific examples is offensive.

I have always known this; I only fell prey to the illusion that, perhaps, things would change as we repeatedly delievered the mail for the party.  Guess I was wrong.

Yes.  But I would submit that you'd still be wrong even in the absence of this deal.

....what has to stop in this country is the unnatural and inordinate deference accorded the judiciary, regardless of the nature and content of the decisions they render.

I don't think anyone is arguing that.  We should, though, restrict our attacks to that "nature and content" rather than seek to change the very role of the judiciary itself.

It is immensely stupid that vast swathes of the Republican Party, and even the Conservative movement itself, continue to proceed as though there is something natural and even virtuous in the present arrangement, whereby judges can remove from democratic deliberation....

I am unaware of any issue which any judge has removed from democratic deliberation.  On what are we being silenced?

There would be no filibuster.

I believe they are doing this on principle.  Maybe that isn't a popular view right now, but I feel the only reasonable explanation is that they want to keep the filibuster around but limit its usage and they expect this deal to do that.  If the Dems start abusing it again, then they have the leverage to stop it.

I'm not up for a witchhunt on them.  If they cow in the face of a Dem filibuster on a mainstream Scalia-like SC nominee, then they have lost my support.  Call me an optimist; I'm not too upset by this.

Sorry, but those are really not the same thing as enforcing the constitutional standard on nominees.  Really, they aren't.

judicial powers were exercised in the holdings of Roe, Casey and Lawrence, for starters?

because we are in favor of limiting the power of the judiciary?

Okay. Whatever. Sign me up. If you want to equate the fight against abortion to the Indian Removal Act and the fight against desegregation that is your prerogative and I'll plead guilty in this instance.

I'm surprised we haven't started arguing that there must be a check on the judiciary for "checks and balances" to mean anything.  They have a free ride right now.  That line of argument would be more effective than the "down with the judges" stuff we've been using recently.

....Constitution II.2.2, I'm not seeing anything that would contradict the Constitution in the Democrats' actions.  What am I missing?

This is not about "maximist" principles, this is about the rights of the majority.

This took place for one reason, unprecedented obstructionism from the minority.  

This wasn't a good faith debate about the qualifications of judges.  This was a fractured and tattered minority party trying to do anything it can to make the winner pay.  Typical lefty mindset, don't let the free market, voters in this case, decide the course of action.  

This wasn't Bill Frist or the Republican's deciding out of the blue to do this.  It was a reaction to a perversion of constitutional authority by the minority.

The fact that this point is forgotten, and somehow the Republican's are to blame, tells me this round was loss.

As for moderates, they did a great job of insuring that no one wins, and this problem is put off for a few weeks until a Supreme Court opening is available.  

I think Scrappleface had this best- it's nice that we now have a Congress that requires a "super-duper majority" to get anything done.

you are right to assert that I would still be wrong about the possibility of the Party taking seriously those of us who put it in power.  If so, why should be continue to care?

Yes, we are arguing about unnatural deference precisely because the content of those egregious decisions entails an elevated conception of the judiciary - one that takes it far beyond the role envisioned for it in our system of government.  The judiciary HAS taken on a new role by delivering such abominations as Roe, Casey, Grutter, Lawrence, and whatever that decision was that cited foreign law as a reason for abolishing the death penalty for juvenile offenders.  So we can't shuck this debate off into the trash.  It's here.

As to issue removed from democratic deliberation, see the above decisions and ponder their implications for lawmaking.  Or is democratic deliberation nothing more than mere blather, never intended to actually change the freaking laws!?

I would only add that SCOTUS is the only institution that can -- realistically speaking -- make a lasting difference in this cause.

It's the historical company we're in.  Offended?  Good.

The democrats appoint all the appellate judges then - they don't matter. But this fight over process would have covered SCOTUS, too.

I'm talking about anti-judicial (per se) rhetoric, not this.

The Constitution specifically lists the areas where it requires a two-thirds majority or other qualification for votes.  Such a listing is in the same section for instance, under treaties; where such a requirement is not in place, the Constitutional standard is a simple majority vote.  It has been that way for 200 years.

The Democrats' action is thus extraconstitutional, and also outside the rules for cloture debate on nominees that have stood for more than half the history of the body.

If you want to equate the fight against abortion to the Indian Removal Act and the fight against desegregation....

Purely your own conflation, Streiff.

It was your intention to make a silly argument in order to cement your credentials as the Christopher Hitchens of RedState?

By all means, well done. We can agree/disagree on the wisdom of this fight over process - but if you want to just throw grenades, have at it.

I had previously assumed that the difference between the judiciary's powers and its actions would be fairly easily grasped.

Okay, I misunderstood.

But I do not think I am alone in that misunderstanding.

The more inefficient, slow, nonproductive and gridlocked any government institution is -- excepting the armed forces -- the better off the country is.

I like snowdays in Washington. But not always - for instance, when Brad Smith leaves the FEC, I want the Senate to confirm a good replacement right quick.

....where such a requirement is not in place, the Constitutional standard is a simple majority vote.

Where the 2/3 majority is not specified, it does not follow that simple majority is specified.  It isn't.  Furthermore, the houses of the legislature are given the power to set their own rules.

I think you're on firm ground here that this is unprecedented.  But the unconstitutional bit doesn't appear to wash.  Extraconstitutional, I think, is a bit of a red herring in the absence of that.

then can you explain?

Thinking back, it has only been reopened when Andrew Jackson decided he wanted to exterminate some Indians; when Southern racists chafed at being forced to behave in a civilized manner; and when FDR decided he wanted total control to remake American society.  It is to our discredit that we've reopened it again.

Now I'll admit to being the product of an intellectual double-whammy by both going to school in the South and being an infantryman, but it seems to me that mine is a logical interpretation or you have inflicted an extremely long non-sequitur.

Who's arguing that we should cede everything but the SCOTUS?

This was simply an unwise and unnecessary choice of battles.

What is not grasped as easily is how criticizing judicial overreach is "demonizing" and how kowtowing to the least representative, responsive, or responsible branch of the federal government is a virtue.

If you want to argue that you're not in the unproud tradition enumerated above, by all means, do so.  It ought, at the least, give pause.

I'll wait here.

Unconstitutional -- or against the wishes of the judiciary -- or not.  The issue is one of political capital and courage in addition to the principle of judicial review (which, look, we do not want to undermine).

Sorry, but you're arguing with a much bigger legal powerhouse than me on this.  The opinion you offer is inconsistent with legal intrepretation that's been in use nearly since Marbury.

For instance: Robert Bork (right), Antonin Scalia (right), C. Boyden Gray (right), Lloyd Cutler (left), Michael Gerhardt (left), Lawrence Tribe (left), and 90% of the Federalist Society (right).

I think the judges should have had a up or down vote. Judges are absolutely notorious for not doing what those who appoited them wanted them to do regardless of what party or affiliation they came from. You may have researched enough to find the names, election times and some past and present stands on issues, but once lifetime immunity is granted, many of the most hard core so called Liberal and Republican judges end up doing exactly what "they" want to do regardless, because no one can do anything about it at that point.

I don't believe that the party's can stack the courts as much as they like to think they can or even close since these people have virtually no one to answer to once the position is granted and that's the way it was intended to be.

One thing Judges have over any party affiliation or personal beliefs, and that is to remain objective regardless of how they feel personally and act according to what is best for the nation and the individual rights and freedoms of those individual.

I think your wasting enourmous amounts of energy and time for something that most likely will not turn out your way even if you get everything you want, the judges themselves will most likely still betrayed your aspirations.

So it has been, so it will remain. Because trevino is wise and strong enough to understand his particular view on why this battle is wasteful, does not make him wrong, just seemingly at odds with what others seem to want, but he seems to be seeking the same thing in a more wise manner.

Since on its face it makes soooo much sense to compare the fights today with racists and ethnic cleansers. I'm done with you today, Josh.

By all means, feel free to debate Judge Bork on the issue.  I just tend to find him rather convincing as a legal scholar.

I'm a product of it as well, and 12Bs aren't much brighter than infantry.

In any case, it's not a non sequitur: I bring it up to illustrate that historically, there's been no good reason to do this.  This ought, I would assume, give us some pause in considering whether we are the first in two centuries of American history to find a great reason to roll back the long-established powers of the judiciary.

But we're not talking about that (whatever it is you're defining as "judicial overreach" here).  We're talking about the rhetorical assault on the very principle of judicial review.  This is, I assume, something we should not do.

Guess I'll look it up somewhere else.

you post where I disagree is in that this fight was either wasteful or about judges.

The fight has turned out to be damaging to us because of the defection of seven nominal Republicans. But the fight was much larger than judges, it was about what power the minority party has to block the majority party from governing.

that illigitimate holdings of unconstitutionality render such laws acts of peeing against the wind?  Who decides, then?  The Courts?  Then democratic politics, on abortion and the other issues alluded to, is meaningless.  The Congress?  Then a little "bullying", as you would have it, of the judiciary must take place.

Yes, we do want to undermine judicial review in certain cases.  Laws such as those overturned by the decision I have mentioned should have been presumed constitutional, and been held to be so, because nothing in prior constitutional interpretation would have permitted rulings against them.  The Court, therefore, ought not have had the "power" to review them, only to punt the issue.  

Make the distinction all you want, but, logically, if the Court had the power, authority, legitimately, to render these decisions, then all cavilling about the outcomes amounts to politics, not a debate over the judiciary.  Which is a clever way of saying that Courts can do anything they want, but we cannot debate the scope of their powers, only disagree with them when we don't like - politically - the outcome.  Cynical and question-begging.  

I have yet to hear conservative mob screaming that Marbury was wrongly decided. Your comfort with Roe does not match mine, but I suppose the disagreement there is merely over judicial review and not over 800,000 babies each year.

But not wishing to be in the company of, as Mike says, racists I, too, will flee the field.

That roughly the past thirty years have marked a distinct and clear expansion of judicial authority into areas of lawmaking, that were in decades prior left to the legislature and the people?

....it probably suits your purpose to take umbrage at a purely imaginary conflation of the pro-life cause and the pro-racism cause.  Because that way, you don't have to address the actual issue at hand, which is that the pro-life cause (I'll be charitable and use that phrase instead of "the pro-power grab cause") is adopting the same anti-judicial rhetoric and arguments as some truly detestable movements in American history.

Now, in a sane atmosphere, this would cause one to wonder whether our actions might not cause more harm than good.  One might also wonder whether we ought to assault what was a demonstrable historical bulwark against those evils.  One might further wonder whether the purported end (again, being charitable, the instalment of some judges) is worth the price.

That is, of course, in a sane atmosphere.

As you should well know. I remember having to play the optimist on a certain day in November, and swearing never to do that again. It's why I was amazed they'd managed to hold that herd of cats together as long as they had.

I rather think that the fight over Roe is hardly unrelated to this. If we cannot muster the muscle to win over some appellate judges, we stand precisely no chance come a SCOTUS appointee. Or do you think they'll develop the parts needed to go to war when the stakes are higher? That belies everything I've ever seen about Republican Senators.

I think you're too optimistic about the non-leadership. Any chance we had at bucking Roe just died.

....is, of course, still happening quite well.

I appreciate that about you tremendously.

I also appreciate your analysis here. It's among the best I have read.

I'm not the first to say it, but I'll reiterate that the fact that extremists on both sides of the divide hate this deal as much as they do gives me some sense that it was ultimately the best outcome. Heh. Who knew I was a moderate?

Unfettered one party rule is not governance. We avoided that yesterday.

I don't think any reasonable person disagrees with that.  The solution, though, is not to attack the longstanding judicial edifice, but to get better judges.

And before someone says it, no, the "nuclear option" was not the sine qua non to that.

....and perhaps this is me being pessimistic, but my faith in "the people" as an aggregate, to say nothing of a moral aggregate, isn't particularly strong.

I have yet to hear conservative mob screaming that Marbury was wrongly decided.

You're not reading this thread, then.  Nor paying close attention elsewhere.

Your comfort with Roe does not match mine....

How immensely tedious.  By all means, conflate Frist's Dobson-aided misadventure with the pro-life cause.  I believe the word the kids use is "tool."

....I, too, will flee the field.

Eh.

Conservatives have lived under their thumb in essence since 1933, and having risen to power in the last 11 years, we find we have no REAL power as long as the imperial judiciary still trumps our every move.

???

Your every move? How so? The imperial judiciary does not rule on foreign policy, it does not rule on taxes and the budget and entitlements. Are you ticked off about the Medicare drug bill or No Child Left Behind--well, the courts had nothing to do with either of those! Nor with the failure of Bush's Social Security proposals to find much favor with the public. Nor with Bush's brand of Big Government Conservatism in general. Vast swaths of public policy are seldom if ever touched by the courts. I do not recall anyone screaming in Reagan's day that conservatives could not accomplish anything, after all: quite the contrary, he managed to defeat the Soviet Empire and bring taxes and government regulation back to some far corner, at least, of "reasonable".  Big important stuff, at least for anyone who cares about the future of this country. The courts only rule (and then only nagatively) on a small number of social and legal issues. Most of these are small potatoes stuff. The future of the nation will not stand or fall (or even change much) on whether Texas has an oddball sodomy law, or whether 17 year olds can be sent to the chair. No, it won't! I will grant that Roe vs Wade (the worst SCOTUS decision of our era) is not small potatoes, but even that will not make a really major difference. If it fell tomorrow, abortion would remain legal in much of the country because the real problem that pro-Lifers seem unable to admit is that the public by at large may not like abortion but they want it to be there for their own possible unwanted pregnancies.

Don't tell me you never cheered on the Bucs.

If we cannot muster the muscle to win over some appellate judges, we stand precisely no chance come a SCOTUS appointee.

I don't think it works that way.  Political willpower tends -- tends -- to match the stakes.  Two things about this fight that differentiate it from a SCOTUS fight?  First, it's not SCOTUS.  Second, it's inside baseball.  Neither would be true when it comes time to pick a Supreme.

Any chance we had at bucking Roe just died.

Obviously I disagree.  There was only a linkage inasmuch as we created one.

As if I needed my rep further damaged here.  Heh.

Judicial review is a tool of that branch, reliant inherently on public good will and support. It has been the sword they used to slice up the nation over Roe. Why don't we wish to at least restrict judicial review?

By the way, I think the popular interpretation of Marbury is wrong, and if it's not, then that case was wrong.

Not that Marbury was wrongly decided, but that certain SCOTUS decisions were and are illigitimate, and that, in the future, one of the measures that should be taken against such decisions is the Consitutional circumscription of jurisdiction.

....with many applications of judicial review -- as I disagree with many applications of many powers of government -- it does not follow from that that we must gut the power itself.

And I was a Fins fan until they torqued Marino.

I admit to pulling for the Bucs against Dallas a few times, when Dungy was around.

Obviously, we disagree about political willpower. I think you may be right on rare occasions, but the majority of times, Senators move in self-protective herds.

And we disagree about Roe. I stand by my earlier assertion -- the string they had to lead us along to the next election remains in place.

But that would be mean to most of the commenters around here.

Your analogy is fallacious.

Either, first, you mean I insist on maximum effect, and the rest can burn, you are incorrect: Maximum would have been a human life amendment. All I want is Roe dead and buried. Such a small thing.

Second, if you mean I'm singlemindedly pursuing a single goal, not guilty: I have a host of other interests and issues. This, however, is the big one. Cato did not cry out his famous maxim and add, ...sed post reformae agrariae perfectus sunt!

There was a rather substantial portion of the Republican party who advocated defiance of the Dred Scott decision and its implications that it was unconstitutional to ban slavery in the territories, regardless of the wishes of its inhabitants.  They viewed the decision as an abomination and an abuse of the powers of the Court--and, IMO, they were right.  Lincoln  raised the issue during his famous debates with Stephen Douglas:

Many had thought that Lincoln had been too defensive in the Ottawa debate, and he responded by taking the offensive quickly. He first answered a series of seven questions posed to him at the end of the first debate, then presented four of his own for Douglas, the second of which. backed Douglas into a corner. The question left Douglas with no way to answer without offending someone. "Could the people of a territory exclude slavery if, as Douglas had said several times, the Dred Scott decision was valid?" Lincoln asked. Aware of Douglas's well-known belief in popular sovereignty, Lincoln knew that his opponent would want to answer in the affirmative. However, the Dred Scott decision, which disallowed Congressional power to exclude slavery from a territory, dictated a negative answer. Douglas fell into the trap, answering that a territory could, indeed, keep slavery out by what he referred to as "unfriendly legislation", no matter what the Dred Scott decision said.

Southerners were irate, and began referring to Douglas's statement as the Freeport Doctrine. It would ultimately prove to be Douglas's undoing.

I'm not on your side on the abortion issue, as you know--but I'm not for unquestioning acceptance of judicial power when clear overreaching is involved, either.  While I do not endorse much of the specific rhetoric I have noted on the issue, I do agree that the federal judiciary--at all levels--has long been guilty of abusing its powers, and probably should be reined in to some degree.

....as to what you feel a proper and workable supervisory mechanism for the judiciary would be.

....on the balance, it's done vastly more good than harm in American life.

And as conservatives, we frankly prefer the oversight of wise men as a check to the will of the mob.

Now, you may rightly argue that many judges are not "wise men," and I would agree.  But the solution to that is to install those who are.

Mike did it to me a few days ago. So it's not exactly turn-about, but, well, you know.

With regard to, say, the PBA ban or DOMA, or some such law, remove review of the law from the jurisdiction of the federal courts, inclusive of SCOTUS.  

If this is unacceptable, then we are left with the effort to appoint better judges.  And the past 40 years are sufficient proof that this cedes an insuperable advantage to the left.  Time to play hardball.

For issues such as the judical nominations, action should be taken as soon as reasonably possible.

For most of it, such as porkbarrled highway bills, it would be nice if they would just talk and talk for ever.

has no remaining application once the "wise men" begin to rule in such a way as to liberate the unwise and base yearnings of the mob.  Which is what has happened in many of the rulings that have us exercised.  In such situations, the conservative must contemplate somewhat radical measures if sanity is to be restored - one of the paradoxes of politics and the theory thereof.

Re: Yes, we do want to undermine judicial review in certain cases.  Laws such as those overturned by the decision I have mentioned should have been presumed constitutional, and been held to be so, because nothing in prior constitutional interpretation would have permitted rulings against them.

By this stnadard even Dred Scott was decided quite correctly since nothing in previosu precedent would have allowed the Court to tackle the slavery question or define the citizenship statuys of slaves any differently than it had

been before.

Indeed, it's hard to see how there would be any valid judicial review at all, since every precedent starts out as a novelty at some point in history. So we would have only two branches of government effectively. But why stop there? If bad judicial decsions are reasosn to gut the power of the courts then aren't bad laws reason to curtail Confgress' power to pass laws, and wouldn't foreign policy calamities be reason to eliminate the President's power to conduct such?

What battles should we pick?

The novelty of Dred Scott was that states could not proscribe slavery on their own territories; this went against previous precedent on grounds of what we would now call a substantive due process claim of property in the slave.  Precedents should originate in legislative acts and traditional practices consonant with them; judicial review extends only to the upholding of the foregoing, not the origination of novelties.

The rest of the comment is a concatenation of absurdities following upon the first.

. . .issue--the Democrats are obstructing the process via which wise men (and women) are chosen by the elected majority.  Though I suspect some or many of them do not agree with my outlook on any number of significant issues, I find this unacceptable.

Don't risk it all unless you stand the chance to take it all.

Such as....?

To the ground in 1992. You've torched it every election since.

It is unacceptable.  You can't simply make a law and declare it wholly outside all judicial review.  Not under the Constitution, anyway.

And I disagree that we are at a disadvantage in appointing judges.  Again, look at the confirmation rate for the President's appointments.  Look at the present balance on the Supreme Court.  We've come quite a long way, and there's no evidence that this progress will abruptly cease.

If we collectively lacked the stones to go to the wall over this now, why we'll have them when the guys to whom we've ceded the power to make these decisions are at stake? If they won't fight for mid-level guys -- won't put their capital on the line for smaller fish -- why do it in the much more polarizing environment?

You seemed to be saying that we should fight on circuit judges, but on picked battles. Did I misunderstand you?

It's even been done before.

Trevino knows what he's talking about. You may not agree with him, but he's far from nonintellectual.

appellate jurisdiction of the SCOTUS.  Besides, at some point in time prior to the unholy advents of these offending rulings, it was largely unthinkable that courts would review these issues.    Now that they have been reviewed and legislated upon from the bench, we are in a new world, judicially speaking, which means, if we cannot get the jinns back in the bottle, the ratchet only works to the left.  And I don't think that we should accept those ground rules.

I am looking at the present balance on the SCOTUS!  That's part of the problem: 5-4 majorities, sometimes worse, to uphold many of the wrongly decided precedents.  Scalia and Thomas are better than nothing, but not "having come a long way" by a longshot.  

Will progress cease?  Watch the coming nomination controversies.  And if Bush is the squish on the social issues even you admit him to be, not to mention the present "deal", the nomination struggles could likely be a setback for us.  How much money would you wager as to which of us is right?  I think that the smart money would be on the pessimists such as myself.

First, the Senate is free to devise its own rules as to operating procedures; Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution clearly states that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings[.]"  The filibuster is simply a rule the Senate has adopted and there is no reason that rule can't apply to anything that comes before the Senate.  

Second, Article II, Section II of the Constitution simply says  the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the Supreme Court and all other Officers of the United States whose Appointments are not otherwise herein provided for, and which shall be established by Law[.]"  There is nothing in Article II that says the Advice and Consent power is not subject to any other "Rules of [the Senate's] Proceeedings".

Do I necessarily agree with the use of the filubuster in this case--no, but the Founders clearly wanted to divide power between the Executive and the Legislature on matters such as judicial appointments, and I see nothing in the filibuster inconsistent with that approach.

I don't remember Acton saying anything about power tending to purify.

I'm walking, mentally, through a host of the important Supreme Court decisions of the last two centuries, and I'm trying very hard to find examples wherein judicial review served the greater good. Young? Dred Scott? Plessy? Miranda? Roe? Any of the idiotic one-man-one-vote? Help me out.

As conservatives, we know men are fallible, and flawed. Putting our trust in one group of men over another is hardly conservative. Having them at each others' throats arguably is.

your tent, my friend, although thanks for the offer.  You are certainly right in parsing the Republican/social conservative distinction.  And trust me, we are WORKING on a legitimately

conservative majority (and my conservatism is not merely social).  Notice how close we came to purging Specter.  There will be challengers to several RINOs next time around.

But even so, do you see my point?  Carthage must be burned to the ground, because there is no victory as long as the Carthaginos(?) hold (and play) the high cards -- ya know, I hate this analogy because Carthage was way cool, and Hannibal was the greatest military mind ever -- anyway, the activist judiciary is willing and able to thwart the established and (IMO) properly enacted law of the land, ergo the clear will of the citizenry, and to make a mockery of the Constitution itself.  The only practical way to stop it is to cycle in originalist judges -- which is our Constitutional right, since we have voted in a 2-term President and a majority in the Senate (well, there's that GOP/conservative distinction again, but we've shown we have the votes).  The Democrats have cried 'Death first!' by using cloture denial.  So we conservatives say, 'OK, death it is!'.  That's why we so strongly want to take away the nomination filibuster, because once that is done, there is no serious impediment to getting a whole flotilla of originalist judges in the courts to open the windows and let some of that elitist stench out of the courts.

...but it is my theory, that the damage may have come from losing sight of the forest through the trees and that the vast majority of damage that could have occured was narrowly avoided.

O'Connor is sui generis.

Maybe it's just the RINOs you disdain.  

But tell me this - I hear all the time about how African Americans are on the Democratic plantation, and how diversifying their representation can only lead to good things for their community.  Assuming your logic holds, I would think it would apply to your cherished interests as well.  Which would then back up "What's the Matter with Kansas" and other commentary about how social conservatism is just a foil for other interests.

Anyway, we've got free beer and some tasty meatballs over here (don't tell PETA) so stop by if you have time...

That your Party would even come to the table on my issue, I'd consider it.

But when I watch them sabotage good candidates against sitting Republicans for daring to think that maybe NARAL isn't right; when I watch what Catholics have to do to stay Democrats; I figure I'll stay on the plantation a little longer.

I appreciate the meatball offer. We have steaks.

with the line about Carthage is that no matter what, it seems to come back to abortion in some circles.  We should reform social security and abortion must be outlawed!  We must spread Democracy to the Middle East and abortion must be outlawed!  We must drill the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and abortion must be outlawed!  I'm gonna go have Fazoli's for lunch and abortion must be outlawed!  Let's go see Star Wars tonight, and abortion must be outlawed!

Cato would be proud.  

But the Republican Party, despite all its flaws in my eyes, is not a one trick pony, nor is it exclusively pro-life.  What are you going to raze?  The Democrats?  The 7 Republicans that foiled you?  The judiciary?  You are at or near flood tide for social conservatism right now, after the 2004 election, and you don't have the guns to get there.  I think the Republican party can possibly gain more seats, but how many more new Republican voters will share your social views?

As for originalism, well, that's pretty much in the eye of the beholder.  We'll see how far your flotilla gets without running afoul of the, er, less devoted members of your party.

In the 1980s. You'll pardon me if I don't buy the Democrat talking point that this is the high water mark.

If you had read my comment you would have clearly seen that my comment was not directed at Trevor.  I was addressing the nonintellectual American voter, of which there are unfortunately many.

But the adage about him tying this to unrelated speeches is exaggerated. Most of the relevant speeches were about Roman security and expansion, then ending with Carthage. It was the rare one that went off topic. He was a classically trained rhetorician; it would have driven him mad to constantly employ those non sequiturs.

Re: Precedents should originate in legislative acts and traditional practices consonant with them

???

And slavery was not a "traditional practice" and one which about half the legislatures in the country at the time (as well as the federal Congress) supported? If that's the standard then one can make a far better case for Dred Scott being decided correctly than for Lawrence being decided incorrectly! After all, most state legislatures had junked their sodomy laws and the Texas law was not at all traditional since it criminalized gender whereas traditional sodomy laws took no account of the gender of the actors or even their marital status.

In 1858 your appeals to tradition and deference to legislatures would have supported slavery not abolition.

If, by an act of legislature, slavery were abolished in a territory, that would end the matter.  If there were eventually enough states to amend the constitution to compel the moral stragglers to give it up, that would also end the matter nationally.  The point is that the legislature is the locus of the tribunal before which our traditions must stand, not courts.  Period.

I have a feeling that Republicans will pay for this and the Schaivo mess heavily in the midterm elections. Frist has taken the party over the edge and most of the rest of the pary just followed.

These huge distractions have cost the Repubs almost every cent of political capital they had and now Social Security and tax reforn are pretty much dead because of it.

Being principled as a politician is overrated. Representatives are there to represent the people, not make decisions that go against the electate. Be principled in your own life, but represent your population as they wish, and that means the entire population in your district, not just your party of those that voted for you. Leader's going against the electorate should be looked down upon, not priased.

I have a feeling that the midterm elections could be very painful for your party. You let Frist rope your party and pull it over the edge with him. Between Schaivo and the nuclear threat, I have a feeling people are getting a little tired of the current majority party. To make matters worse, those two issues distracted from the issues they were voted into office for: Social Security and tax reform have no chance of getting done now. Way to go.

Plain and simple. Principle is nowhere to be found. The Dems have agreed to confirm three alleged extremists for fear that the Republicans might be able to confirm ten. The Republican wager is that they can parlay public sentiment against patent Dem obstructionism. Their hole card is the possiblity that one of the dreaded three might be able to be confirmed to the SCOTUS.

Of course, the Dems will filibuster any SCOTUS nomination that endangers Roe v. Wade, regardless of how hypocritical they might look, and then we're back to the nuclear option, except this time, the game is far more serious. Could the Republicans put together a coalition of moderates with Roe potentially on the line? Not on your life.

Unless I miss my bet, the Dems will probably have to confirm most of W's appelate nominees. They've got to keep their powder dry for the big SCOTUS fight. Bottom line? The courts edge right, but Roe remains the law of the land.

Many in the black American and latino American communities.

Might I ask who you think is leaving the Rs?

Your 'Carthage must burn', was in response to Thomas, regarding stopping abortion as the be-all, end-all goal of (large portions of) the social conservative crowd.  Got it, though I'm a little slow.

Originalism may have a good bid of wiggle room, which is why we have 9 SCOTUS justices, and lots and lots of Appeals judges, because honorable and wise men/women can disagree.  But there's no way that Roper v Simmons (to name a very easy one) remotely resembles originalism.  So I reject that it's all in the eye of the beholder.

And we ain't anywhere near the high-water mark.

But as for whom/what I wish to raze.  Well, this answer is so long, I put it in a diary entry.

moderates

And why I stated before the deal was struck that compromise was the worst result for Dems politically, if not necessarily substantively.

For once, moderation was not in the Dems' interest.

This is not to say this is a loss for Dems. I still rate it a slight win. But it could have been a big win for Dems.

Win or lose on nukes.

I have difficulty understanding why, taking such a defeatist view of politics - he who does not fight but runs away, lives to run another day - one would be involved in politics at all.  I can agree that perhaps Frist should have recognized earlier that a substantial number of GOP Senators would never have the will to take action against Senate prerogatives, but the fact remains that the GOP ran on this issue in multiple Senate campaigns in 2002 and 2004 - and won almost every race except where people like Salazar and Landrieu made noises about supporting the White House - and it would have been an obvious betrayal not to use some force to push through the disputed nominees.

But what do you really mean by "maximalism" here, other than that-with-which-you-disagree?  I hardly regard the Medicare fight as "maximalism," given that conservatives got nearly nothing we wanted and the main reason the White House was behind the bill at all was because Bush painted himself into a corner in the 2000 campaign trying to match proposals with Al Gore.  The day I regard pushing through the Clinton Administration's unfinished business as an excess of conservatism is the day I give up entirely on the concept that there is such a thing as conservatism.

As for Iraq, if national security isn't an occasion for being uncompromising, what is?  (I note the absence from your list of the other major 'maximalist' effort - the tax cuts.  I assume you oppose those too?)

By the way, the idea that Reid is any kind of pro-lifer is pure Democratic talking points.  The man has demonstrated a willingness to go to great lengths to prevent any change in the law regarding abortion.

Look, there's a fair debate here about strategy, but this post comes off sounding like David Broder, so you can't be surprised if some of us don't regard this as constructive criticism.

Now why would you say that when I gave a similar interpretation, albeit from a Dem perspective, BEFORE the deal.

What happened to loyalty?  Heh.

She's not saying that it is good for Dems. She is accepting that it was not the best result Dems could have gotten.

Which happens to be true.

Take a look at the cloture vote and try to find a consistent theme. The no votes are the judiciary committee democrats, and a few other fairly left types. Inouye was absent. Note that Sens. Clinton, Obama and Durbin voted yes. Granted, this is just to end cloture and not to confirm, but shouldn't the democrats have tried to make it closer to appear that the compromise group really was a minority of a minority? What ground do they gain by setting an 80-20 cloture vote based on the agreement. I hope the republicans at least force a closer cloture vote on the Saad nomination to show where the fault lines lie.

I don't know that yesterday was a loss so much as a postponed victory. If the votes are going to play out along these lines, the republicans will slowly accrete a weapon to shame the fence sitting democrats, although shame is usually useless against a political pro.

Tom DeLay and the entire Congress's actions earlier this year in the Schiavo case made me, for one, extremely fearful of political meddling with the judiciary when it comes to politically removing their jurisdiction. I'm pro-life, staunchly anti-Roe, think this filibuster "compromise" is a defeat for Republicans efforts to get a less activist judiciary. But I will fight any effort by Tom DeLay or Rev. Dobson or anybody else to yank authority to review the constitutionality of statutes as they apply in particular cases from the courts and hand it to Congress. THAT would bring about the "mob rule" the founders fought so hard to avoid.

I love Reid as leader, and why I can is an anti-abortion Dem is worth the same as a pro-choice Republican, nuthin.

Why i ripped NARAL's endorsement of Chafee.

if I understand it correctly, is that the deal ameliorates this somewhat.

And I agree with him.

we'll see how it turns out.

Souter is as reliable a liberal vote on the SCt as Rehnquist is a conservative one.  If you follow the Court closely that would be clear.

O'Connor is not; she's all over the map.

. . .shame the Democrats.  Simply concentrate on slowly tightening the screws on the crucial Republicans--if they can point to something that would constitute a significant breach of the agreement by the Democrats, they will have a reason to declare the agreement void and vote for the end of the judicial filibuster at that point.

Now that is truly an insult.

Surely you do not mean that.

As I understand Trevino, and understand my goals are the complete opposite of his, he is saying this mean was not justified, especially since it did not help you get to your end.

I completely agree.

Why? Because knocking out the filibuster would likely have been a Pyrrhic victory.

We would have been able to paint the GOP as a wholly owned subsidiary of Dobson.

Now you may operate under the illusion that that is not a bad thing. Me, it was my dream for 2006.

It becomes a much more difficult for us to do this. Trevino's post is dead on. We Dems culd have had a big political victory, win or lose on nukes, we kicked it away with this deal.

The substance favored us sure. But the politics did not. not by a long shot.

 

Gold and Gupta? Sorry. Legal pipsqueaks.

There is not even a credible argument that it is unconstitutional. It was a fine political ploy, but good legal reasoning it is not.

What Trevino is saying, and I agree with, now that you used this political device now, you really can't repeat at SCOTUS.

Why? Because now the focus is on the nominee, and whether the nominee makes the filibuster "extraordinary."

And guess what you conceded? Voting no, in and of itself is NOT extraordinary. When indeed, it is.

Oh right.

Nevermind.

Because, again, faced with a nominee you've already confirmed - make the case that it's "extraordinary".

that should the Court oveturn Roe in the future, that delegitimaizaion of the Court is fair.

But you know what Trevino, Bush v. Gore was a big step in that direction for our side. Before, you could have trusted Liberals to respect the Court completely. not so much anymore.

But your point is right, now even if you win eventally in the SCOTUS, you know what will come from us in return. We could not have done it before.

What are you driving at pray tell?

Had over 60 votes when the GOP started its filibuster.

Point is how can you start something that is unprecedented and wrong?

We should have won this here and broken our opponents at a weaker juncture. Thank you.

It was a compromise, not establishing a standard, especially for SCOTUS.

Now, it seems to me you are now arguing the deal was good. Then you would be agreeing with Trevino.

Since I think the deal bad for my side, in the sense that we could have had a big political win, win or lose on nukes, it seems we all agree.

..you'd know that his name is not "Trevor". But I digress; I'm being unkind.

Fortas' nomination was withdrawn by Johnson.

The filibuster against him was successful.

Not sure what rationalization you are trying to make by asking how many votes he got.

I have heard rationalizations like he wouldn't have been confirmed anyway or it was a bipartisan filibuster, but I fail to see why the filibuster of his nomination is ignored by those who think the filibuster of a judicial nominee is unprecedented.

I take it this isn't your first time here. On Kos, someone in a recommended diary linked to this analysis, decribing it as "balanced" so I had to take a look. And lo and behold, I can't help but agree! In fact, the only difference most liberals would have with this diary's conclusions is that--as the driven-to-paranoid minority--we think that Bush is screwing up the dollar and the war on purpose. It's all a devious Rovian plot!

p.s. I think, McJ, that their extremists hate it more. Have ya checked out Freeperville lately? They're calling for heads!

And think on this, while you may have broken the filibuster, could you get the votes to confirm to SCOTUS?

A very close question.

Look, I'm not happy about this deal from my Dem perspective, because I thought we could have a big win politically.

Win or lose on the vote, and the fact is no one knows what the result would have been, I think the political price you would have paid would have been high.

And I still think we could have stopped your most extreme judges from the SCOTUS on a straight up or down vote.

Now, we have preserved the filibuster, but it still becomes a battle of the nominee. We'll need 51 in any real sense anyway.  

a bulwark against evil?

I think not.  Plessey and Dred Scot were judicial decisions.  The ratification of the murder of 40 million Americans was a judicial decision. And these were evil decisions by branch that believes it is and should be beyond any check by the other two, and beyond any CRITICISM by a supposedly "free" people.  It is not, in ANY sense, a "bulwark" against evil.

Just because you take a lawyer and put a black robe on him doesn't turn him into an all-wise solomonic oracle.  He's still, at heart, a lawyer, and a (wo)man -- with all the petty biases, lusts, ambitions, and self-love as any politician (who are also, almost without exception, lawyers).

Now, take nine of these black-robed masters, and declare that their decisions should never even be CRITICISED because that "lessens the respect of the judiciary" or whatever...I call B.S.

Look, for thirty years we've been told "Hey, you don't like the decisions of the judiciary? Then elect a Republican president to appoint guys you like."

Okay, we did that: Reagan.  But then the goalposts were moved -- the Dems (and Specter) introduced the Bork option (which continued to be applied to other candidates throughout the remainder of Reagan's term and all of Bush41's term).  Which led to "stealth" candidates -- and we all know where that got us: we nominate Souters, they nominate Ginsbergs.

So then, we were told "Hey, don't like it?  Well, elect a Republican majority in the Senate." So we did THAT.

And then Jeffords betrayed his party -- but we shouldn't be angry at the RINOs, we deserve betrayal after all.  We shoulda been nicer to him over whatever-the-heck his pet issue was ($11.1B instead of $11.0B for education, I think, when previous budget was what? 8.5B?  He wanted a 30.5% increase but W+Kennedy only gave 29.4%.  Waah!)  To make matters worse, folks like you said: "Don't blame the RINOs, we need 'em (and never mind that they always seem to side AGAINST you in these fights)."  "Don't try to replace a RINO with a loyal Republican; instead only pick off Dems." -- even tho the net effect of EITHER course is identical, and (b) is much harder than (a).

So in 2002 we buckled down -- take back the Senate, judicial confirmations are important.  And we did so.  But then the goalposts got moved AGAIN.  Unprecedented never-happened-before filibusters, routinely deployed against 1/3 of the President's appellate nominations; 10 in all.  OUTRAGE.

But don't get radical.  We can't do anything now.  There's too many RINOs -- but don't be mean to THEM, they might get upset (never mind YOUR anger; you deserve betrayal.  You're the "religious right" after all.)  Just wait until 2004.  Re-elect W, and add more R seats to the Senate.  Defeat head obstructionist Daschle -- then, THEN, we really really pinky-promise this time, we'll do something about "the most important issue in the new Congress: confirming judges".

So we listened, donated, worked, knocked on doors, manned phone banks, and finally, FINALLY!  After 30 years, we've got a Pres who for all his other faults, appoints constructionists, and a 10-seat majority in the Senate.  That SHOULD be sufficient to account for the backstabbing RINOs we were told not to touch, 'cause if we hurt their feelings they might take their ball and go home like Jim Jeffords.  And what happens?  Three things:

(1) the RINOs, as expected, turn traitor and side with their ideological brethren.  But worse, blinded by personal ambition or fooled by promises of the untrustworthy (Byrd! Yeah, we can trust HIM!), other Republican Senators like Graham, Warner, DeWine side with the RINOs.  At this rate we will NEVER confirm another Scalia.  Win two more R seats, and two more spineless wonders will, effectively, switch sides.  But hey, we deserve betrayal -- we're only conservatives and everybody knows we're evil.

(2) People like you accuse US of a power grab! Right, a thirty year, lawful, electoral strategy stymied at every turn by unprincipled lying tradition-destroying radicals on the left, aided and abetted by the MSM, RINOs and sniveling "arguments" like yours.

(3) Finally, we are also told that we should not be upset about this turn of events.  Apparently, according to you, social conservatives should just shut up, take it up the * AGAIN, and learn to like it.  "Maybe in 2006.  But if not, then 2008 for sure.  Or 2010.  Well, one of these days, really, we mean it.  But keep those checks coming in (you fools)."

Thanks, but no thanks, trevino.

allright, I don't HATE the deal, but I dislike it a lot.

So maybe the Repubs don't walk off a 100 foot cliff and instead only 50 footer. It is still going to hurt.

Also, I think the agreement only softens the blow if it allows the Repubs to get back to their other work. If nothing comes of the economic reforms, this will be a monumental wast of 6 years of Republican majoritarianism, and they will be punished accordingly.

Or God help them if the Repubs find yet another topic to waste time and capital on.

not your strong suit.  Pray tell, how do you define "the electorate" to which a leader is to be responsive, if not the majority that voted him into office?  Or, put another way, what fraction of the population is sufficient to warrant political obedience?

We have a bicameral republic for a reason -- you might want to read up on it.

A check on the judiciary. Now the judiciary can only interpret laws to be viable or not. And the Congress can draft the laws that are challegable by the judicial. And, of course the Executive can suggest legislation but cannot pass it, although it can veto it.

The original intent of the judicial, if any part of my memory is any good anymore, was to remain outside the influences of the Executive and Congressional, and strictly interpret the legality of social institutions and agenda's in the form of law that have been introduced and confirmed.

The essence of the true intent for the SC is that it remains "uncheckable", if you will, and uninlfuenced by politics, which was the indeed the intent.

I would be willing to listen to why we should change such a premise however.

who defines where "moderation" lies?

I didn't even realize it was a talking point.  The programming by MSM must be working better these days.

Anyway, I'm not talking about Republicanism, merely social conservatism.  And Doverspa makes the valid point that there are some possible growth areas in minority communities.  But overall, it seems if the Republican party is to expand it's majority much further, they will do so primarily by moderates winning seats in swing states, not by finding more Coburns.

The mechanisms of this republic aren't as fast as you like, and you're not getting your way.  Okay.  That makes two of us.

One of us, though, is not pitching a tantrum over it.

By the way -- if you dislike what the judiciary does, you're going to hate what unfettered mob rule looks like.

I would have gone against my party had they threatened to do the same thing if they were capable. I think that is my responsibility to the institution.

I'd be happy if we'd just reclaim the D's that have been voting R.

it's fine legal reasoning, in the sense that they argue a particular position of jurisprudence.  But the fact that an argument can be assembled for the position doesn't make it correct, as it seems Augustine is saying.  Bork is a very smart man, and a good lawyer in the sense of having a deep understanding of law.  But this does not make him the absolute authority, any more than any other legal scholar.  The point is debatable, at best.

I think the compromising republicans best means to drop the hammer is using shame as the PR cover when they decide to revisit the "nuclear/constitutional" option. The postponed argument is simply whatever "extraordinary" filibusterable nomination comes next, and since there seem to be no discernable intellectual principles left for the democrats, that's where the shame will be useful for the compromisers to return to the good graces of the republican party faithful - it's not so much of a "how could we have trusted them", as it is a "we gave them a chance and they blew it - therefore Cheney rules".

I've been looking for a thoughtful examination of this issue on the blogsosphere.  I've been VERY disappointed with the ranting, raving and nashing of teeth that goes on on Repbulican and Democrat sites.  But, your piece really is one of the best I've seen on the issue.

Frist overstepped.  He was undercut by competitors in 2008.  His presidential ambitions are done.  Dobson gave him a soft kick today....  I'll be looking for harder ones to come.

The Dems caved because they were going to lose.  The Republicans caved because the Senate is not the House (thankfully) and the knives were already drawn on Dr. Bill.  All of this is about the impending SC battle.  THAT will be the mother of all Supreme Court battles, especially if GWB tries to appoint another Scalia or Thomas to the bench.

GWB also had some wins/losses in this issue.  His agenda was high-jacked and this battle (unnecessarily) consumed lots of political energy that TOTALLY pushed aside any discussions of his major issues.  Let's see if he can recover from this.  Let's hope that he grows from this and starts to govern with the best interests of the country in mind.

Most of all, let's hope that we can stop setting up a government of, by, and for the Religious Right.  We're fighting fundamentalists in the Middle East.  We don't need to put them in charge of our government in the United States.

p.s.  Save the flames.

Yes - a notable positive in all this.

My POINT was that this was a lawful, LONG-TERM rear-guard fight, NOT a power grab.  It was a demonstration of patience to an absurd degree.

If the old saw about "fool me twice" is true, what should we say about "fool me every two years for fifteen or twenty elections, but keep stringing me along"?

That refusing to pour good money after bad is a "tantrum"?

Look: the judges won't support the Constitution -- they as a class prefer to couch personal policy preferences as judicial rulings on the contents of a "living" text.  The Dems aid it.  The Repubs, it is now clear, won't fight it: not today, not next week, not after the next election or the one after that, not EVER.  They will always snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and then ask me to thank them for it.  And you'll cheer them on.

Sorry.  I'm off this bus.

I am not so cluelessly as to misapprehend who votes for what these days.  Souter has been a reliable liberal vote.  But we're not talking another Brennan here.  He's not a hard core leftwing activist judge, at least not if that phrase has any many as related to the history of what it means to be hard core and left wing.  He's demonized because he hasn't voted in accordance with what was expected of him, but he's not the towering pillar of liberalism he's painted in these parts.  

Lest you forget, W mentioned judges at Every. Single. Campaign Stop. last year.  It was invariably his largest applause line.

Judges were part -- a major part -- of his agenda.

'Course, I say "were" as in past tense.

Brilliance coming from you is nothing to write home about.

Given the hysteria over her views, who are the Fourteen going to be able to point at as grounds for an "extraordinary" decision to filibuster?

a possibility of 3 judges being scrutinized at worse through filibuster efforts. Out of how many judges again?

You are far from being betrayed at worse, and have been saved from yourself at best.

I think if you believe that the vast majority of American's are going to adopt some form of twisted dictatorship type mentality for the cause of controlling the courts in direct contrast to it's intent, I think you may be misleading yourself, and have not at all been betrayed by anyone else but yourself.

Reflect upon the fundementals of the Republic, and you'll see this type of tampering was really frowned upon, and for good reason. There are other ways to get what you want, this way cannot benefit the Republic and will most likely be rejected.

but we have to live with it, right?

And you are an extremist. I've seen you trolling around here. (See, I'm simultaneously undercutting both you and trevino, making my own stock rise.)

The electorate are the voters. For the President it covers the entire country, for a senator it covers his state, and the for a congresssperson it covers his district.

The electorate can be thought of a gigantic policy weighing machine, the best ever created. Like the brain is composed of many neurons that are individually dumb but collective smart, so is this machine composed of people.

Just because I didn't vote for Bush doesn't mean I play a smaller part in the brain than you.

good to see you. I'm afraid we're all going to be banned if we cluster like this. Heh.

And don't count your chickens just yet.

There is the loyalty I seek.

It is well argued.

I should not have written that.

They clearly are 2 very very bright guys.

. . .if she's been confirmed--and if cloture isn't voted, the deal is dead.  If the Shivering Seven vote her down, they're going to get hammered by the GOP base--I don't see it happening.

It's still a case by case thing. Still, a good idea.

I broke the posting rules!

Hey, just trying to fit in. Sides, he's just a measly kossack.

Then we agree. hope that doesn't hurt your cred.

But some have longer tethers. I'm aware this is a joke. Let's not make it a regular practice?

Still need 51.

Might she not get it?

And i apologize.

In my defense, pyrrho knows i am joking.

Bring on the famine and pillaging!

Armando - Did you read the actual memo?

The "Memo of Understanding" clearly includes all future judicial nominess including SCOTUS: "...related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress".  

It further sets a standard whereby all signatories agree they'll proceed in good faith, and "..filibuster under extraordinary circumstances."

Are you saying that the phrases "extraordinary circumstances" and "good faith" in the memo is not a "standard"?  Based on the comments by the 14 Senators afterwards, they all disagree with you and see the memo as a standard they expect to follow.  Secretly not planning to abide by it indicates bad faith.

Our Senate majority could be expanded by winning in ND (2), SD, NE, LA, AR (2), FL, WV (2), IN, CO, and MT.  That's 13 seats in pretty right-of-center to hard-right as possible states.  Graned we have ME (2) and RI too worry about, but that's only 3.  The swing states are actually our strongest area with NM, OH (2), PA (2), MN, NV, and IA seats.

Bottom line, we could easily break 60 Republican Senators without winning in a "blue state" or even a swing state.  This cycle alone, we have WV, FL, NE, and ND Democrats defending seats.

The status quo favors Republicans although I wouldn't mind winning over another 5% of America.

What the hell is Voinovich doing re: Bolton, and this uncirc'd memo of his? Look at the NYTimes online headline.

What is with these OH senators?

Knew that you were joking. I, at least, did.

The rest is appreciated.

are supposed to check one another.  Where have the checks on the judiciary gone.  They haven't seen anyone impeached in generations.  The Congress has avoided taking any issues away from the court's jurisdiction (which it has direct Constitutional authority to do).  Even the President's appointments are now subject to 60 votes in the Senate.  So if the branches are to check and balance one another, I'm asking where is the check on the Judiciary?

Since the first cloture vote didn't even get a majority on the floor of the Senate, I question your math.

And sorry for hanging qround so much these days.

But take it as a compliment.

Means 2 things. you guys are writing very interesting stuff. And you are civil enough to allow us to debate with you.

No question we would not be as nice back at our place. I'd say we will try to be but i'd be lying. There's not much we can do now. And not sure we would want to.

The 3 branches (IIRC) are to check one another.  That is why Justices can be impeached, although only in "extraordinary circumstances."  And the executive appointment was also a check.  The most underutilized check is in the Constitution.  Here is the part that explains the judiciary's role (Article 3, Section 2):

Section. 2.

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Congress is empowered to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.  The fact that this check has remained dormant has allowed the judiciary to be "above" the other two branches of government.

See I always thought the check was the power to appoint and confirm.

Let me revisit my Federalist Papers and see if I got that right.

I know this outcome is not what anyone wanted, but to say "I'm not giving any more money to any Republican" is stupid.   Just shift your donations away from the RNC to conservative candidates or causes who serve you better, even those in other states.

Don't let this demoralize you for too long.  You owe it to this country and your family to keep fighting for conservative values!  You won't win every battle because you can't control who other states elect (but you can donate to candidates in other states).

The only way you can change legislation and judges is by WINNING elections.  I'll take a right leaning Senator over a left leaning Senator ANY day.

Tell me what Madison thinks of the notion that the president ought to confer with the Senate before making a nomination.

Josh and Mike can vouch for me. I can actually be quite pleasant and reasonable. As for these other two? Look out.

Everytime i read one of your posts you sound like a moderate republican, yet you always seem overjoyed that the extreme-right is gaining power (a thesis I would disagree with you on, we will see in a year+ I suppose).  

Anyway, maybe I read you wrong, but I don't see where your sense of joy in radicalism of either stripe comes from, since you dont seem to be one.

for cloture. If there's a better demonstration of a nominees unliklihood of passing the Senate, I'm not sure what it.

are up for appointment to the appellate courts again, you might  have an argument, not one i would accept.

But we're talking SCOTUS, a whole different ballgame.

The Constitution recognizes the Supreme Court as a co-equal branch, whose existence is NOT at the sufferance of the other branches. The district and apellate courts are not. They exist at the whim of the Congress.

Now, what I wrote just above as treating SCOTUS differently is horsehockey imo. But so was the Constitutional Option nonsense.

My real argument is a compromise is a compromise. Who was accepted as judges in the compromise establishes NO standards for extraordinary in the future. There is no basis for such an argument. What if I argued that the GOP accepting that Saad and Myers could be filibustered established the standard of ACCEPTABLE filibusters? Yet the argument is as logical as the one you present.

So think of this - a nominee - I claim the nominee is no better than Saad or Myers. You claim that  they are as good as Owen or Brown.

We could both be right. In fact, we WOULD both be right. So which principle from the agreement prevails?

Your argument holds no water.  

It is horsehockey.

Ridiculous notion.

Hey, I hate the deal.

want.  That's the standard at this point.  If 2 of them think Dems are being unreasonable, then they can end it.

That is probably the standard.

Now the votes to confirm . . .

you didn't have to tell me.

Slightly off topic, I think the vote was hanging on Specter. Snowe, Cafee, Collins, McCain, and Warner were I think going with the D's. Specter was not one of the 14 who signed "The Deal". I called Specter office today and the answer there was that Specter has not issued any statements about the deal or why he was not part of the 14. I thought he was part of the discussions at some point, anyone know what happened with Specter?

Win or lose on the vote, and the fact is no one knows what the result would have been

I wont post on kos anymore even tho I'm on your side.  Its a zoo of stupidity with the occasional worthwhile comment.  Drives me nuts.  

But I didn't want a count on how many days till I signed my SF-180, oops, I mean, answered the question.

Chloe Wofford Is My Fav -

You said: "Let's hope that he grows from this and starts to govern with the best interests of the country in mind."

GWB recongizes, and I know you really do too, that a liberal judiciary is severely damaging the culture and government processes in America (judges preventing states from passing laws and state Constitutional Amendments, removing the word God or the boy scouts from schools, etc.).

I personally think it requires the second most attention in the Senate, second only to national defense (some of which is being restricted by judges as well).

You obviously have a different opinion of priorities.

Most of my views are not "in the middle" but my views don't line up on one side either.  I support gay rights which doesn't seem to be a moderate view right now.  I am pro-life, anti-Roe and pro-Constructionist judges which is why it is infuriating to see Dems filibuster mainstream Constructionists.  That means they think I'm extreme and as one might expect, I don't agree with them.  I back SS reform (especailly PRAs) which Dems are holding up.  I support tax reform and would probably be a fan of the Fair Tax or a flat tax depending on the details.  I'm against the death penalty in general although I think it is a state issue.  And I support a much more leniant legal immigration policy (which means both sides disagree with me it seems).

Overall, I would prefer a strong Republican majority who could try true conservative policy for a while.  Enact the Fair Tax, SS reform, and shrink government while appointing constructionist judges.  I would love for some Dems to support those issues, but even Nelson (D-NE) opposes moderately conservative policy as the atmosphere has become so partisan.

Finally, I don't want the extreme (social) right in power.  I would not vote for Coburn in a Presidential race but I know that Carson would have opposed the Constitutional Option and thus helped keep Roe as the law of the land.  I'm not supporting Santorum or Brownback in the '08 primary.  I do want someone who is committed to the War on Terror and shrinking government.  That's why Govs Bush, Pawlenty, Owens, and Sanford are on my shortlist.  Most importantly, the far left worries me more than the religious right.

this is more of a question than a statement.

But wasn't clause 2 (as mentioned above) intended to be utilized for the slight adjustments that the differing factioned wanted to be able to influence it before it became solidified? I mean, I most certainly could be mistaken, but I thought from the memoirs that I have read indicate that Clause 2 was to be more of a termporary drafting tool rather than a long term power check system. Appointment & Impeachment yes, but long term adjustments to the fundemental principle that were intended not to change very quickly if at all, I have some difficulty in absorbing it to be true because I believe many pre-constitutional papers bare this out. Also, I believe most of the original consessions demanded of the judicial branch as it was being conceived had to do with state's right adjustments for furture drafting and influence and not to change the fundementals agreed upon during the "adjustment period" of the consitutional birth and subsequent periodical drafting.

Armando -

You are bringing up a different issue of not using particular nominees as benchmarks (I agree with you there).  You are probably mixing my comments up with others, its easy to do.

I'm saying simply that all the signatories agreed that "filibustering only in extraordinary circumstances" and proceeding in "good faith" is the standard each expects themselves and others to adhere to moving forward.  That's all.

If any of you have any question about where McCain's loyalties lie, check out this paragraph from the end of the Washington Times article about the deal:



Moments earlier as the deal was about to be announced, several Republicans offered the lectern to Mr. Byrd, who demurred, waiting instead for "his turn."

"Your turn is whenever you want it to be," said Mr. McCain, a chief architect of the deal who had to leave the press conference before it ended to make an early screening of a movie about himself.



(emphasis added)

The only cause McCain gives a smeg about is the cause of John McCain.  Anything and anyone else can and will be abandoned by him as needed.

for the senate.  The nuclear option might have made good politics for some and bad politics for others, but it would have had a lasting negative impact on the senate.

....that they were voted in for Social Security?

Seriously - did Bush even mention privatization on the campaign trail before turning around and claiming it to be his highest priority after being elected?  I sure don't remember anything more than

then mentions - he sure didn't run on it.

   I do believe that when the history is written his bizarre attempt to dismantle Social Security will be seen as the beginning of his lame duckness. Schiavo and nuclear option haggling will be seen as minor

icing on the huge cake he baked himself into.

I have never understood why the filibuster should be allowed in the first place.  There may be a need for some way to delay proceedings when it appears that new information might change the results, but why do they need a tool to prevent the Senate from acting at all?  

It's been framed in terms of protecting minority rights, but the only time minority rights outweigh the will of the majority is when they are being discriminated against for some suspect or invidious reason, such as race, religion or on some other irrelevant basis.  A vote based on political differences cannot be considered as that kind of discrimination, unless you've already decided that gay rights or the right to an abortion is in the suspect class.  

The Democrats are using the filibuster for with the claim that these judges are "extremists," but what do they mean by that? Allowing judges to decide issues of policy  that are as divisive as abortion and homosexuality is doing what the Democrats say they don't want the Senate to do: putting an end to debate, without working out a consensus.  The difference is that legislatures are elected and allow robust, far-ranging debate over policy, while judges aren't and don't.  

Filibusters serve no purpose beyond thwarting the majority will.  They keep the Senate from acting.  That may be fine for legislative issues, since the Senate makes its own rules, but allowing them on presidential nominations amounts to amending the Constitution by Senate rule.  Why Republicans think that is a good thing, I can't understand.  I can't for the life of me see why delay and obstruction of the already-snail's-pace Senate operation is seen as a good thing.  I also don't see why, if this handful of senators don't want to vote for these nominees, they shouldn't vote against them, rather than settling their fate in a deal that's essentially meaningless, based as it is on "good faith" and "extraordinary circumstances."  

If the parties were acting in good faith, the Democrats wouldn't be using a filibuster in violation of a long-standing tradition on allowing nominees who are passed out of committee a floor vote.   Does anybody really think that the Democrats won't decide that a nomination of someone like Priscilla Owens to the Supreme Court is "extraordinary?"  If they were acting in good faith, they wouldn't have to have made this deal, and the Republicans wouldn't have essentially conceded that Myers and Saad will be voted down to throw the Democrats a couple of bones.  This doesn't show "good faith" on anybody's part as far as I can see.

Could you please explain to me how Jesse Helms single-handedly preventing votes on moderate

judges who would've sailed through with 65-80

votes was Constitutional while 41 Senators

preventing votes isn't?  

   I really don't understand - my Constitution doesn't have the phrase "blue slip" or the phrase "filibuster" in it. I can understand (though

diagree vehemently ) the argument that "advise & consent" entails a straight up or down vote by

the entire body.  But I don't see any intellectually

honest way to put two methods of preventing that

vote on different sides of the line.  Enlighten me.

(too often) gets the better of me.  But I'm still not tracking your point.  You argue that a politician has a responsibility to represent his/her entire electorate -- I concede your point.  However, we're not arguing about representation; we all believe in better education, better lives for our families, etc., we just have different prescriptions for getting there.  I believe in captialism, someone else believes in socilaism, a third believes in communism.  We all vote, and the person who ran on capitalist ideals wins.  What should that person do -- act according to the ideals that led to his/her election, or reamin mired in inaction because some portion of the electorate disagreed?  And if the latter, by what percentage of votes does a politician have to win to warrant freedom of action?

I respect the rights of minorities to have their say, but I don't feel overly constrained by them in our democratic system because it begs the question, "How many are enough?"  On that score, as evidenced by the Constitution (with a few notable exceptions), the Founders clearly came down on the side of simple majorities.

Your definition of maximalism seems to be: That which was not achieved. Because it was not achieved, it was bad. And round and round and round.

Your maximalism is my principle.* And fighting a battle, political or otherwise, for principle is worthy. Caving or compromising is unworthy. Which is what the Sullied Seven did. (Granted, failing to prepare for a battle of principle is also bad, politically and perhaps morally. See Frist, Bill.)

Also, there is no good to be found in throwing people like Judge Saad under the bus. Why would anyone seek a federal judgeship when you stand a good chance of having your reputation destroyed and then being cast aside for reasons of political expediency? It sickens me, what happens to good people who wish only to serve their country.

In Washington, destroying people is considered sport. Only the paychecks aren't as high.

* The principle in question: In our constitutional republic, the elected, executive branch has the authority to appoint members of the judiciary with the advice and consent of the Senate. That principle has been betrayed.

 

filibuster is just a negotiating tool for the minority to extend debate on an issue temporarily.  it has always been entrusted as slight leverate tool for the minority to be used in good faith.  it is usually only useful on legislation to tweak language, but it is almost unworkable on judicial nominess since you have to take them as they are.

I like to argue.  As I understand, the most egregious portion of the Dred Scott ruling, the part which lead to the infamous line stating the Negro "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect" arose from that portion where Taney is generally considered to have indulged in "obiter dictum", what today we would call judicial activism.  In his finding that Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in the territories or authorize territorial legislatures to do so, he pronounced on a subject that had not been raised in the case, viewed by most constitutional scholars as a clear instance of activist ruling.

he could have walked away from the Medicare thing after winning office. Clniton swore up and down in 1992 he would offer a middle class tax cut and instead raised taxes (albeit not on the middle class).

Re: "This is not about "maximist" principles, this is about the rights of the majority."

But those 55 Senators in the "majority" actually

have fewer constituents than the 44 Senators

in the "minority".  Which is precisely one of

the (many) reasons a filibuster is a necessary check

and balance. To protect the interests - or, as

you put it, rights- of the MAJORITY of Americans

in a non-proportonal body such as the US Senate.

I'm not immune to the occasional post trumping a GOP crackup. But you picked the wrong issue. The Right's decision to go down in flames over the Schiavo matter was much more of a "power grab" and far more detrimental to the Constitutional principles than the nuclear option would have been. When no less a voice than Rick Santorum was urging the courts to depart from the text of the toothless law that was written, and look instead at the "intent" of Congress, then you know something has gone seriously awry.

Examine the political reality here. The fight over judges is distant from most Americans in their daily lives. To most people, it's messy, it's confusing, and it doesn't matter. To assume the party would have "paid the price" in terms of public opinion for changing an arcane Senate rule is the height of arrogance. It assumes Washington is the center of the universe, which it's not. Senators have every right to change the rules governing their body - and, yes, a Democratic majority would have the right to do the same. That's why we have elections, no?

You refer to the nuclear option fight as at once "maximalist" and "tactical." Which is it? It's not maximalist to return to a place where Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, though vigorously opposed (with varying degrees of success), could be voted against but not filibustered. Democrats could have easily defeated the Thomas nomination with a filibuster, but chose not to. Clearly the dramatic departure here has been with the current Democratic leadership.

Which runs counter to our principles in the long run? Running roughshod over strict constructionism, and urging extra-legal courses of action when things don't go our way, as in the Schiavo matter? Or going to the mat for the principle that the courts cannot invent law and rights out of thin air - especially when the words "abortion," "privacy," "sodomy," "homosexual," and "marriage" appear nowhere in the text of the Constitution.

and Indiana and West Virginia have some blue strength areas too. Also, out west you have to contend with the native libertarianism of the electorate, which is a brand of conservatism not much in vogue in DC these days. The GOP may be able to elect righwtingers in the South but will have to settle for something a bit more traditionally Republican in other areas of the country.

I would say is a spent force with no defining ideology left, and it has retreated to a few echo chamber oubliettes in academia and the like where it grows increasingly less connected and less influential. You need only to cruise some of the loonier threads at Kos to see how far these folks have drifted out to sea.

If the center-left Dems denounce the Krugman/Moore left, I could conceive of voting for Dems in some situations (especially if Roe were overturned).  I definitely think Lieberman would have competed for my vote this year.  But watching Dems boo him at events was enough for me to realize the Clinton/Liberman wing was in decline.

I'm a mole. Heh.

I actually did get the joke. I'm a liberal, but not a completely humorless one--mostly, but not entirely. I'm looking forward to conversing with you folks.

But if Dorgan, Conrad, Bayh, Johnson, Nelson, Nelson, Byrd, Rockfeller, Pryor, Lincoln, Baucus, Salazar or Landrieu were retiring, Republicans would be the favortie in the open race.  Some places more than others and we might not win each time (see Salazar, Landrieu) but we would be running on friendly terrain.  Unlike say, MD, MN, PA, or RI where we are on neutral or Democratic terrain.

My point was that we could expand our majority without winning over more moderates.  I don't think that is the best strategy, but it could work especially in the Senate.  Personally, I'd like to see Roe fall and the party shift to a Schwarzenegger/Guiliani candidate in 2008.  That would be ideal and would lock in the Republican majority for a while.  

I was pondering earlier why we put up with some of your snark.  I'm happy to hear your comments here which are reassuring especially in acknowledging that the reciprocal arrangement would not be tolerated.

There is much you could do, but I understand your incentive not too.  We are much smaller and a major (although not the only) reason is because we don't let profanity run wild.  Sad as it is, that limits our growth.  It's a trade that I'm happy with personally.

The Hill yesterday evening, he was going to vote with Frist.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has communicated to Republican leaders that he will vote with the vast majority of Senate Republicans for the so-called "nuclear option," a controversial procedural tactic that would bar the filibuster of judicial nominees.

He endorsed PRAs during the campaign.  It was one of the reasons I supported him.  He did so in the 2000 race as well.  It made headlines because candidates normally stay far away from talking about SS.  Don't revise history to your taste.

I am not nearly as aware of the federalist documents as I should be.  I am a mere economist, not a historian although I hope to read more of them with time.

I would also posit that invoking that clause would be a true "nuclear option" as it disrupts the (accepted) balance between two branches instead of the balance within a branch.

But underlying point still remains, what are the acceptable checks on the judiciary?  They were not expected to be above the other branches, but that is how they are now treated.

as usual. I just read the article you cite, it's not clear to me how he would vote.

Eric Ueland, Frist's chief of staff, disputed that Specter has secretly told the Senate leadership how he will vote today.

"Generally we don't comment on such claims from anonymous sources who don't dare go on the record -- but this one is just preposterous, as Senator Specter himself has said publicly he has not told the majority leader how he would vote," Ueland said.

Specter spokesman Blain Rethmeier disputed that his boss has revealed which way he is going to vote, adding that his current position was reported in a New York Times article Saturday.

The Times quoted Specter as saying, "I haven't said how I am going to vote, and I don't intend to."

Here is a good link that works backwards from the Constitution to the Federalist, so you shouldn't have to read them in order.

Your definition of maximalism seems to be: That which was not achieved.

Two examples I give are the Iraq war and the Medicare bill, both of which were achieved in spades.

In Washington, destroying people is considered sport. Only the paychecks aren't as high.

As you know, I agree and empathize fully with the context from which you approach this.

The principle in question: In our constitutional republic, the elected, executive branch has the authority to appoint members of the judiciary with the advice and consent of the Senate. That principle has been betrayed.

I disagree here: the Senate gives or witholds its advice and consent as a body, and how it does that it its internal business.

Just pointing out that he sure didn't let on that

it was going to be the lead issue of his second

term.  I think if he had been honest about that, President Kerry would have greatly appreciated it.    

Points well-taken, of course, on the relative merits of the Schiavo case -- which I freely admit I explicitly did not condemn simply because I found the overriding issue to not be the procedural one.  Still, it doesn't change the critique of this case.

To assume the party would have "paid the price" in terms of public opinion for changing an arcane Senate rule is the height of arrogance.

Certainly obscure, messy and confusing internal Hill matters played no small part in the 1994 revolution.  And I think your assertion that few care is belied by the reactions on this very thread.

You refer to the nuclear option fight as at once "maximalist" and "tactical." Which is it?

Why the assumption that they are exclusive terms?  I refer to both because it is both.

....going to the mat for the principle that the courts cannot invent law and rights out of thin air....

I certainly wish there was a case to be made that eliminating the filibuster directly concerned that.

a nice pair of socks!  

But they do have to be nice.

If there really were 65-80 senators willing to vote for someone Jesse Helms was blue-slipping, then they should have been able to get 51 of them to sign a petition to bring said nomination to the Senate floor.

These kinds of stalling tactics have always been overcomeable with 51 senators.  If they couldn't get those 51 senators, then the nominee must have not had majority support.  QED.

A while ago (don't have the link right now, sorry), I saw some excerpts from that supposed filibuster of Fortas.  Senators were saying things like 'why are we invoking cloture now?  We've only been talking about this for 4 days, that's not enough time to debate this' etc.

The people at the time weren't calling it a filibuster.  Sure there was a cloture vote, but I'm sure there have been filibusters that never had a cloture vote, so that can hardly be the defining standard.

Some background: Abe Fortas was already on the Supreme Court; LBJ was trying to promote him to Chief Justice.  Then ethics stuff started to leak out, and his support in the Senate started evaporating.  The cloture vote made it clear how much it was evaporating (as I recall, a narrow majority was for cloture, but neither side got 50), and the nomination was withdrawn a couple of days later.

Both parties were on both sides of the debate; Democrats were both leading the opposition and the support for Fortas.  Even if you insist on calling it a filibuster, it was not a partisan filibuster like these 21st Century filibusters are.

In other words, Fortas's situation was vastly different from the one today, and trying to justify the current-day filibusters using it is either being dishonest or naive.

   The ones we thought were leaning right, aren't. I will keep fighting for conservative values, yes - because the Republican majority in the Senate won't.

   When you say shift money away from the RNC, that is exactly what I intend to do. It may not matter much, but in my circle I am well known for going to the mat for Republicans, particularly this President. I am not much in the mood for that any more. Conservatives will find a way - with or without the current crop of mealy-mouth Senators.

 What do Republicans need before they feel like they can govern effectively? Eighty Senators? Ninety? And as for your last point, I thought we DID win the last election...

I am not demoralized. I am pissed off.

Correct me if I'm wrong, cause you're clearly more familiar with the place than I, but uhh, aren't females scarcer 'round these parts than jokes?

c17wife, jadedmara, Darleen, and....er....

Trevino,

You seem to have a very flimsy understanding of the "filibuster" and evolution of Senate rules.  

The opportunity to filibuster was the result of an oversight by Vice President Aaron Burr in 1806.  He discovred that rule eight, a rule which allowed a majority of US Senators to bring the issue they were debating to a vote, was rarely used.  So he proposed that the rule be deleted.  

But he neglected to propose an alternative rule that would have allowed the Senate to end debate on an issue, short of all Senators agreeing to do so.  

By 1917, President Wilson, a majority of US Senators and the public demanded that the Senate change its rules.  Why?  Because 11 isolationist US Senators filibustered the Armed Ship Bill, a bill that would have allowed American merchant ships to be armed in light of the threat of German submarine warfare.  

After much debate, the Senate enacted a cloture rule, which allowed for debate to end if 2/3rds of the Senate voted to end debate.

Did the Senate of 1917 "change the rules in the middle of the game?"  

Did Vice President Aaron Burr "change the rules in the middle of the game" when he deleted rule eight?

Did the Senate of 1975 "change the rules in the middle of the game" when they changed the cloture rule so that only 3/5ths of the Senate was required to end debate instead of 2/3rds?  

Imagine what the world would have looked like if the Senate of 1917 did not change the rules in the middle of the game and was, therefore, unable to declare war, as long as a small minority of isolationist US Senators could take turns speaking on the Senate floor, eating, sleeping and going to the restroom.

Sorry, Trevino.

The filibuster isn't in the US Constitution.  Is it a "check and balance?"  Perhaps.  But it was a check and balance that the framers of the US Constitution did not endorse.  No subsequent amendment to the US Constitution placed it in our nation's highest governing document either.  

I recommend that you read a little bit about the history of Senate procedure (which includes rules and precedents,  and how they have changed over time before you present the current Republican Senate as violating some law written by Moses (or Madison for that matter).

Someone's missing the point of the post entirely.

was just a continuing trend in the expansion of the Court's mandate. Roe and Gore v Bush were both bad law for exactly the same reason, they didn't have a dog in this hunt.

"the President was having a fair number of his nominees pushed through, and there was not, to my mind, any particularly unusual Democratic obstructionism underway."

What did you just wake up from a coma? How many times do the approval rates of the President's nominations to THE FEDERAL BENCH (NOT ALL nominations, including to the district courts, which are politically irrelevant) in historical terms need to be repeated before it gets through some really thick skulls? For example, Clinton and Bush Sr. both had approval rates of such judges upwards of 95 percent with Senates controlled by their own respective parties. Approval rates for Bush's nominees under the same circumstance barely makes it over fifty percent. Among the biggest, most lasting, influence a modern president can have is shaping the federal judiciary (like it or not, that's where a huge block of American political power now resides). Bush and the Republicans have now nearly completely forfeited their opportunity for such influence. When Hillary take over in 2008, believe me, she won't forgo that opportunity, which will be all that much greater with so many vacancies on the federal bench just waiting to be filled up with left-wing jurists. God, help us all.

In between the people on RedState and DailyKos who were writing suicide notes last night.

For several main reasons.

1. Deleting multiple scenerios that also effected why the filibuster evolved into it's current configuartion does not present the full story as to see it in the light rather than the shadows.
   
2. The concept of the filibuster pre-dates Burr's so called mistake by almost 150 years, it was by no means a new concept or a simple mistake, to portray it as such is misleading.
   
3. And most importantly. Even as a very strong supporter of many Liberal agenda's I too have many reservations about those I choose to be my leaders. Placing very watchful eyes on those I support and bringing them into check when they go too far or infringe on the rights of fellow American's, whether that be Rep's, Dem's or other, or lay risk to the institutions of the Republic I will not support them in the interest of the Institution, which "IS NOT" the Constitution, "IS NOT" the party, "IS NOT" religion...   ...it is,...THE PEOPLE.

We all have very specific interest in keeping the institution safe, primarily from ourselves, then from those we support.

Once we make the mistake as a people to choose these things "OVER" the institution which is ourselves, then our best outcome would be civil war.

Trevino would never support the majority of issues that someone like me, being a sincere Liberal might bring up. But, like myself he has chosen institution over party in this one instance, and as far as I am concerned, that was very smart. To chose not to damage the Rep party, the Dem party, the institutions and who knows what else for the sake of an "EGO" battle is by no means stupid.

Someone had the balls to stand up and say, "NO" the overall risk to the institutions themselves and what we will do to ourselves and the country overall is too big a price tag for an "EGO" battle. I see absolutely no negative consequences from this thinking.

The Republican's arguably got the better end of a sour deal for all, but the price we didn't pay as a nation is priceless.

Against those who support me, and against those who do not, I say Trevino was smart to think what he thinks. It's not about the judges anymore....GET IT"? It's deeper, more fundamentally important, understand?

It may help the Democrats more than the Republicans in the long run...painful irony there.

Being that I consider being a Republican as a means to achieve policy ends, not an end in and of itself.

Untold deaths v. party strengthening. Most pro-lifers would take the trade in a heartbeat.

Can we kill this fallacious argument once and for all?!?  Snators represent the state they are elected from, not individual "constituents".  To try to count populations from those states and then claim that the minority is actually the majority is disingenuous sophistry.  If you want a view of what that representation would look like, take a look at the House, or (if you'd like to take it to the individual citizen level) the Presidency.

I wasn't saying that thus, if you are loyal Republicans, you should want to avoid that happening.

I would guess that you are correct.  That being said, it would shake up a lot of things.  The social conservative/economic conservative coalition would strain much more but many "pro-choice" candidates would actually have to take positions on state level legislation thus making abortion more like the death penalty where some oppose in all cases, some want it more, but most want it around but not used often and thus restrict it heavily.

I think in the short run Guiliani would be the biggest gainer from Roe falling.  In the medium run, it reshapes the political landscape.

but a while back somebody ridiculed the Thomas Frank thesis, Gengisdon remarked he supported that thesis, and somebody else responded to Gengisdon that Frank was wrong simply because of the filibuster fight.   In other words:  Franks thesis that the Republican Party uses social conservatives to get votes so they can get power which they use to make the rich get richer, and never actually delivers in any substantial way on social conservativism because doing so would A)drive moderates, especially wealthy coastal Republicans, Rockefeller Republicans finally into the other camp and B)deprive them of wedge issues for drumming up votes.  After all, if you feed your pit bull, he won't fight so mean!  As Franks puts it, when you vote for the GOP, you "vote for ending abortion or defending traditional marriage, and you get tax cuts for the wealthy."

I don't know who it was who claimed that the fillibuster fight was the GOP's payoff to the social conservatives, and thus ending it was going to finally give that reward for all those telephone calls made and checks written, thus proving Frank wrong.

But now that the GOP once again has flaked out on its social conservatives, do you Thomas or anyone else out there who is feeling waves of anger at the GOP see Frank's point?  After all, what has the President managed to do for social conservatives?  We know what they've done for corporations and the super wealthy, times have been very good if you fall into that category, but what have they really done, beyond snipping at the edges, to restore morality and traditional values in America?