Frist: filibustering judges is OK as long as its not Democrats who're doing it

[Drake Tungsten]

Santorum and Byrd deserve each other.

[MrFun]

It took long enough for this thread to reach the ****ing second page.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


Santorum and Byrd deserve each other.

They do, brain dead pair of assclowns the both of them. But at least Byrd has the excuse of being senile...

[Drake Tungsten]

He hasn't been senile for most of his distinguished 742-year career in the Senate...

[MrFun]

I thought it was 813 years.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'll defer to you in this matter. You are the history major.

[MrFun]

well it's about ****ing time

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
He hasn't been senile for most of his distinguished 742-year career in the Senate...

Yeah, the more senile he gets the more sense he makes. That's frightening.

[DanS]

The problem is Frist has been demanding that ALL of Bush's judges get confirmed. That's no compromise.

In this case it is. That's why this is such a loser issue for the democrats. None of the judges fit the "extraordinary circumstances" criteria under an expected compromise. It's hard for the GOP to provide a sacrificial lamb so that the democrats save face under these circumstances.

Unless the democrats' goal is to shut down the Senate and lose the favorable precedent, this is a dog of an issue for them.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

The problem is Frist has been demanding that ALL of Bush's judges get confirmed. That's no compromise.

No, he's demanding that they all get a chance to be voted on.

Why should he do that when the Republicans have been even more obstructionist? Perhaps the Republicans will all guarantee in the future they'll give up or down votes on all nominees of Democrat Presidents?

[Drake Tungsten]

Why should he do that when the Republicans have been even more obstructionist?

Because he's the head of the majority party in the Senate and, when it comes right down to it, has the Democrats by the balls?

[Admiral]

Originally posted by DanS


In this case it is. That's why this is such a loser issue for the democrats. None of the judges fit the "extraordinary circumstances" criteria under an expected compromise. It's hard for the GOP to provide a sacrificial lamb so that the democrats save face under these circumstances.

Unless the democrats' goal is to shut down the Senate and lose the favorable precedent, this is a dog of an issue for them.

Republicans are only kidding themselves. Let's look at the numbers, shall we? Democrats allowed 205 judges to be confirmed. They are now blocking ten. Many of the nominees were conservatives, and probably distasteful to the Democratic Senators. So when you really look at it, the Democrats have already compromised 205 times, and now Republicans are saying, "ok, allow five more of these through, and we'll save the fillibuster." It is perfectly clear that what we have on our hands is a Republican power grab, and interestingly enough, polls show that people generally support the judicial fillibuster.

But really, your post just shows your lack of understanding regarding the forces at work here, and the stakes. The Democrats lose in a compromise. Right now, the Democrats win. Frist has not called a vote on the nuclear option for one reason, and that is because right now, he doesn't have the votes to get it passed. Frist's entire presidential bid resides on this vote, and the support of Dobson and co that will fall upon him if he looks after their options first. They want the nuclear option, no holds barred, and if Frist has a chance, he will get it passed.

Right now, in the eyes of the public, Frist doesn't look good. Reid offered a compromise, probably insincerely, and Frist stated that he will accept no compromise that allows for the fillibuster. Frist is looking more and more like an extremist, and Reid can now say that he gave Frist an opportunity to compromise, but Frist wouldn't take it. Any compromise at this point, however favorable to Republicans, won't involve Frist. He loses.

So there are a couple of ways this could go. A) there could be the nuclear option vote, and it could be blocked by crossover Republican votes. The Democrats and crossover Republicans win in this case. B) there could be the vote, and Frist wins. This will look bad for him, and whoever voted alongside him. The Republican power grab meme is already in place, and this will just reinforce it. Any action on the Democrats part can be seen as fighting against this, and the Democrats win. C) There is a compromise. The vote doesn't have to take place, Republicans are seen as being nonpartisan, and getting their nominees through at the same time. While the Democrats may save some face, their rhetoric of this being a right wing power grab falls apart, and they are seen as weak. And in the end, the same thing will happen over Bush's supreme court nominee if the Democrats compromise now. The Democrats lose.

Reid knows this. Whether some blue dog Democrats also realize this or not remains to be seen, but they, not the crossover Republicans, ultimately decide who wins or loses.

[DanS]

But really, your post just shows your lack of understanding regarding the forces at work here, and the stakes. The Democrats lose in a compromise. Right now, the Democrats win. Frist has not called a vote on the nuclear option for one reason, and that is because right now, he doesn't have the votes to get it passed. Frist's entire presidential bid resides on this vote, and the support of Dobson and co that will fall upon him if he looks after their options first. They want the nuclear option, no holds barred, and if Frist has a chance, he will get it passed.

I think I understand the dynamics well enough. You are correct that the dems lose in a compromise. However, they lose even more by not compromising. They lose the precedent. They can't stop this without shutting down the Senate.

Frist and the GOP win on this no matter, so you would expect the dems to seek to limit the scope of the win. Shutting down the Senate is extremely risky.

and interestingly enough, polls show that people generally support the judicial fillibuster.

The mass of American voters couldn't give two ****s about the judicial filibuster. What kind of freaks do you talk to? This is all inside baseball.

[Admiral]

The mass of American voters couldn't give two ****s about the judicial filibuster. What kind of freaks do you talk to? This is all inside baseball.

From the Washington Post:

But by a 2 to 1 ratio, the public rejected easing Senate rules in a way that would make it harder for Democratic senators to prevent final action on Bush's nominees. Even many Republicans were reluctant to abandon current Senate confirmation procedures: Nearly half opposed any rule changes, joining eight in 10 Democrats and seven in 10 political independents, the poll found.

Also, there is this from The Hill, regarding an internal GOP poll:

The Republicans are keeping the “nuclear” poll numbers secret, whereas they have often in the past been keen to release internal survey results that favor the party.

But in terms of elections, this just merges into a percieved Republican general effort. In 2006, Democrats can say that these people are attempting to gain power by any means possible, and can point to a number of factors. They can point to the DeLay scandals, they can point to the schiavo insanity, and they can point to the nuclear option.

Because in the end, the conservative wing of the conservative party is not as big as some like to think it is. Even now, the Democratic Party has more registed voters than the Republican party. Bush ran in 2000 as a moderate, and in 2004 as a wartime president. Moderates, while they agree with Bush on some things, don't agree with Bush on his more conservative initiatives. Moderates were overwhelmingly against the schiavo intervention, and they seem to be against the nuclear option. Once the Senate Republicans press the trigger (if you'll pardon a bad analogy), they won't be able to be seen as a moderate party, and they will lose votes. The Democrats may slow down the Senate, and they claim they have a way of doing this without shutting down the government as the GOP did under Clinton. They may look whiny if they do this, but they'll look like whiny centrists. I just can't see Frist and his allies looking good in this context.

[DanS]

None of those polls give numbers by strength of feeling. I think they are of limited value in helping judge whether people would vote based upon this general opinion.

People are so tuned out from politics now that it doesn't matter a whit to them what happens on a particular procedural precedent in the senate. Again, it's all inside baseball.