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

[Dinner]

What I've been seeing on TV is that 6 Republicans would have to side with Democrats to block this and right now 2-8 are talking like they're going to do it. That's what has got Frist into a tizzy; that some of his people aren't as partisan or extremist as Frisk would like/

[DanS]

Looks like a "compromise" has been reached. The GOP gets what it wants. Now we can move on to other useless topics.

Senators Reach Deal on Filibuster
Small Group Reports Compromise To Avoid Showdown Over Judicial Nominees

By William Branigin and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, May 23, 2005; 8:23 PM

Fourteen Republican and Democratic senators announced this evening they had reached a compromise designed to prevent a showdown over President Bush's judicial nominations.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), speaking for the group of seven Republicans and seven Democrats, announced the agreement at a news conference at 7:40 p.m.

Under the deal, the Democrats agreed to accept cloture votes on three of President Bush's judicial nominees: Priscilla R. Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor.

In return, the Republicans pledged not to support the so-called "nuclear option" to end the ability of the minority to use filibusters to block nominees.

The group of senators, including Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Robert Byrd of West Virginia, said the Senate leadership had signaled it would go along with the compromise.

The Democrats made no commitments regarding two other conservative judicial nominees, Henry Saad and William Myers.

"In a Senate that is increasingly polarized, the bipartisan center held," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.).

"The Senate is back in business," echoed Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Word of the agreement came after leaders of both parties indicated they expected the dispute to come to a head tomorrow, and Bush reiterated his insistence on "an up-or-down vote" for his nominees.

Earlier in the day, as senators trooped to the floor for a fourth day of speeches for and against Bush's choice of Owen for a federal appeals judgeship, negotiators convened in McCain's office in the last-ditch effort to work out a compromise that would avert the so-called nuclear option maneuver.

Without the compromise, it had been expected that the leadership of the majority Republicans would move tomorrow to effectively end the minority Democrats' ability to use filibusters to block judicial nominees. If that step were taken, Democrats have warned, they would shut down most business in a chamber that operates largely by unanimous consent.

A vote on a motion to cut off debate had been scheduled to be held about noon tomorrow, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) announced.

If at least 60 of the Senate's 100 members voted for cloture, the body could then proceed to a vote on Owen. If not, Frist planned to make a point of order that debate on a judicial nominee should be limited and ask Vice President Cheney, as the presiding officer of the Senate, for a ruling. That would lead to a vote that, if Frist prevailed, would effectively set a new precedent by requiring a simple majority, instead of 60 votes, to end judicial filibusters. This would also circumvent the Senate requirement of a two-thirds vote -- 67 senators -- to change the body's rules.

In a floor speech this morning, Frist said that "cloture would yield a fair up-or-down vote." He said that "the American people expect us to act" on nominees and described the choice as being between "judicial obstruction or fair up-or-down votes."

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) asserted that Owen has already had at least three votes on the Senate floor. He said the votes were on "whether or not we should stop debating her" and that three times the answer has been no.

Later, Reid was asked about the prospects of a compromise before tomorrow's vote.

"Well, I would hope that something can still be worked out," he told reporters. "But I think each day that goes by, the possibility's less. I think the odds of something being worked out now are very, very remote."

In an appearance at the White House with the visiting Afghan president this morning, Bush rejected Democrats' efforts to prevent his nominees from receiving a vote by the full Senate.

He said he has chosen nominees who "will bring great credit to the bench" and that he has been "consistent with judicial philosophy in my picks." Bush added, "And I expect them to get an up-or-down vote. That's what I expect. And I think the American people expect that, as well. People ought to have a fair hearing, and they ought to get an up-or-down vote on the floor."

During today's floor debate, Byrd of West Virginia implored fellow senators to "step back from the precipice" and refrain from triggering the nuclear option. "I'm deeply troubled," he said. "I'm almost sick about it."

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) charged that "the extreme right of the Republican Party is attempting to hijack the federal courts."

But Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) argued that Republicans are only trying to restore the traditional requirement of a simple-majority vote for the confirmation of judges. "No one on our side of the aisle has even suggested that minority rights be overrun," she said.

[Drake Tungsten]

[Admiral]

I really don't understand the logic behind the Democrats in this. If the filibuster is only to be used in extreme circumstances, what, pray tell, do we have now? I really think that 10 out of 215 can be extreme circumstances. And the compromise was worded in such a way as to allow Republicans to vote against the filibuster if they feel that the circumstances are not extreme enough: ie, the same debate will occur over Bush's supreme court nomination.

In the end, the two judges that the Democrats are not confirming have gotten almost no media attention. Certainly Owen and Brown, the focus of the Democratic activists, are both getting confirmed. DanS is, sadly, correct, and this, all for the dubious ability to filibuster the supreme court is certainly not a victory for the Democrats. The only real consolation is that it is not a victory for Frist either, and his presidential campaign will be the harder because of this.

[Drake Tungsten]

So neither side wins? Seems like the best possible solution to me...

[DanS]

The GOP wins, but not much. It gets its judicial nominees through. It makes the Dem leadership look a little weak in front of its supporters. About as well as the Dem rank and file could have expected, considering the silliness of the strategy in the first place.

[Drake Tungsten]

Actually, I think the Dems came out a bit ahead. They didn't have the votes to stop the nuclear option, but they managed to escape by only having to allow votes on three appointments. Pretty even compromise all in all, though...

[Boris Godunov]

Frist is the loser, actually. Dobson et al are furious, he looks politically weak because he was clearly unable to get the commitment of the votes they needed to pass it. If they had had the votes, he would have hit the button.

The Dems come out ahead since they were they first to offer compromise, and Frist flat-out rejected it. Now he's essentially caved to that offer.

Score another for Reid.

[DanS]

Well, we won't be having any filibusters for Bush's Supreme Court nominees because it's now pretty much settled. If you want to view that as a Dem victory, then you are welcome to that view. But I don't share it.

[Drake Tungsten]

Well, we won't be having any filibusters for Bush's Supreme Court nominees because it's now pretty much settled.

Where do you get that idea? The Dems haven't lost the ability to filibuster...

[DanS]

They haven't lost the ability to filibuster, but they've lost effective use of the filibuster, except in "extraordinary circumstances." This is a high bar. They might be able to use it on one or two occassions during a two term presidency.

[Drake Tungsten]

Come on. We both know that the Dems will consider any attempt to put a legitimate conservative on the Supreme Court to be "extraordinary circumstances." This issue isn't dead, IMO.

[DanS]

I don't think it will fly. Those 7 dems will vote for cloture. They've given their word.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't trust the word of any politician.

[DanS]

That may be true, but these guys have to work with one another all the time. 6 year terms, etc. Oddly, I think there is at least some small sense of honor in the institution, if only because absolutely nothing can be done in the Senate unless the vast majority of Senators allow it.