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

[Admiral]

The only reason this compromise occurred at all was to allow for filibustering supreme court nominees. Both sides know this, and both sides expect a filibuster if Bush doesn't appoint a moderate. However, in response to Boris, while Frist loses, the Republican party wins. This is not a good compromise for Reid.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Admiral
However, in response to Boris, while Frist loses, the Republican party wins. This is not a good compromise for Reid.

Disagree. Politically, it looks like a win for the Democrats. If Frist had the votes, he would have done the deed. He didn't, so he caved. This means that Reid and the Democrats have successfully outmanuevered him. Just look at the two on the floor of the Senate: Frist looked despondent, Reid had a huge smile on his face.

It also means that James Dobson won't be picking the next SCOTUS justice. If it ain't a moderate, the Dems will indeed filibuster.

Oh, and I love the latest gallup numbers:

"Do you think the country would be better off if the Republicans controlled Congress, or if the Democrats controlled Congress?"

Republicans 36% (41%)
Democrats 47% (45%)

This is after a week of nothing but the nuclear option being in congressional news. I'd say the Dems have successfully portrayed it as a naked GOP power grab.

[Admiral]

The problem is that both Owen and Brown get confirmed. These two nominees have been the focus of such an effort on the left that both of their passages will make us look week. If these were the two that would not go through, I'd be much happier with the compromise.

[Shi Huangdi]

This compromise has the rare property of outraging both freerepublic.com and democraticunderground.com who have both accused their respective sides of selling out.

This has to be a relief for Bush and Frist in a way. This move for the nuclear option was decidedly unpopular politically, and they stood take a big hit if they went through with the nuclear option. This should relieve the political damage from this, while allowing them to blame the moderates to avoid excessive damage from the GOP base. This presents a real problem. The Moderates who were pushing this deal have an opportuntity to look good and should be helped in any of their re-election bids in a general election, althought the Republians who did this will probably risk a primary. Any of the Republican moderates who favored this deal may have dealt quite a blow to any of their Presidential aspiration, as this will definitely hurt them in a Presidential primary.

As for procedural matters, we'll see how this turns out, and we'll see how "extraordinary" gets interpreted by the Democratic moderates, and then how the GOP reacts to that. Will the Democrats count being opposed to Roe v. Wade as "extraordinary", or will it be saved for true extremists? Time will tell here.

[Edan]

Originally posted by 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.

Why wouldn't they filibuster Supreme Court nominees? This has been a bad PR issue for the Republicans. If this same situation happens with a SC nomination, it'll be higher profile, and likely worse for the republicans.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Edan


Why wouldn't they filibuster Supreme Court nominees? This has been a bad PR issue for the Republicans. If this same situation happens with a SC nomination, it'll be higher profile, and likely worse for the republicans.

Actually, a poll they did awhile back showed more Americans wanted conservative juidical nominees then lbieral ones. They just didn't want the filibuster overturned to do it.

When it comes time to confirm nominees, the Democrats will have to decide if they want to try to filibuster. If they do, it'll be up the GOP moderates to decide if the proposed candidate fit under the "extraordinary circumstances" provision- they will be under considerable pressure from their own party to say that it isn't and the Dems broke the deal. If that happens, the GOP can then use the nuclear option. The GOP is still in a better position then they are now, since then the court of public opinion would be judging on who broke the deal rather then the already unpopular nuclear option.

If Bush is smart, what he should do is simply ask to put forward nominees that were previously conifrmed, perhaps judges put forward through this dean such as Owens. The Democrats would be in a difficult position to backtrack on a judge not being extraorindary then but being so now.

The SCOTUS nomination, if it comes up, will be the big battle. Whoever wins gets great credibility with their base, whoever loses faces their bases wrath.

[Bosh]

This compromise has the rare property of outraging both freerepublic.com and democraticunderground.com who have both accused their respective sides of selling out.

In that case, I'd have to give the compromise an enthusiastic thumbs up, anything that drives Freepers and DU nuts has to be good...

[SpencerH]

Republican wimps!

[Boris Godunov]

Actually, a poll they did awhile back showed more Americans wanted conservative juidical nominees then lbieral ones.

Thanks for the false dichotomy, but most Americans want moderate judges. This isn't an issue of conservative vs. liberal judge options, this is about extremely right-wing judges vs. more sensible conservative judges. If the Dems were holding out for liberal judges, none of Bush's nominees would have gotten through. As is, they approved all but 10.

So that's why the American people agree with the Democrats more on this issue: the Dems are the ones advocating moderate judges.