home

Latest Compromise on Judges Not Good Enough

Bump and Update: It sounds like the Senate is getting ready to sell us down the river. They report being close on a compromise. From the quote below, it sounds like it's all done but defining the "extreme circumstances" that would allow a Democrat to filibuster a Supreme Court or other judicial nominee. In other words, if that's all they are "struggling with," they've already caved in on letting almost of all of Bush's judges in, including Owen and Rogers Brown.

"I don't know whether we're 10 percent there or 70 percent there. It's still very fluid," said Sen. Ken Salazar, a Colorado Democrat. "There are language issues and conceptual issues that people are still struggling with."

If it goes down this way, it's a huge loss for the Democrats. They will have put a bunch of extremists on the federal bench, and only preserved the right to filibuster in "extreme circumstances" and more importantly, only through the 109th Congress. All of the Supreme Court justices except perhaps Rehnquist can hold out until 2007 - and then the Republicans will make the same move to end the filibuster they are making now and we'll be back at ground zero.

I'm sorry to see Colorado Ken Salazar be one of the leaders of the effort.

*****************
Original Post 6:39 a.m.

The AP is reporting on concessions Democrats would have to make to avoid a nuclear option showdown. It's still unacceptable.

Under the most recent Republican-crafted offer, Democrats would have to allow the confirmation of six Bush nominees: Owen, California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, as well as Michigan nominees Susan Neilson, David McKeague and Richard Griffin. The Senate would scuttle the nominations of Idaho lawyer William Myers and Michigan nominee Henry Saad, aides said.

At this point, maybe we're better off encouraging Republicans to think they can win it all, so they oppose the compromise as well. Centrism never works, in my opinion. It's like a divorce settlement. Afterwards, both sides felt they gave too much. And there's not even a judge to blame.

Sometimes it's better to just roll the dice. So everyone, whichever side you are on, call your senators and tell them, No Retreat, No Surrender.

< Frist is the Villain: Save Our Courts | Santorum Compares Democrats to Hitler >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Latest Compromise on Judges Not Good Enough (none / 0) (#5)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:11 PM EST
    It's like a divorce settlement. Afterwards, both sides felt they gave too much. And there's not even a judge to blame. Hold your horses, there. Having gone through a separation and achieved an agreement with the help of a mediator, I can tell you it saved both of us enormous grief, not to mention money. I suspect you're right about the Senate compromise, but divorce settlements are good.

    Re: Latest Compromise on Judges Not Good Enough (none / 0) (#1)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:12 PM EST
    Just to be clear then - next time there's a Democratic President, you're ok with the proposed new standard of 60 votes for a judge, right? or is this standard only for Republican appointees?

    Re: Latest Compromise on Judges Not Good Enough (none / 0) (#2)
    by The Heretik on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:12 PM EST
    Yesterday was a disaster for the Republicans. Frist looked terrifying. Dems need to stand tall in the tide of BS. More on this at Desolation Road: Armageddon on the Potomac

    Re: Latest Compromise on Judges Not Good Enough (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:12 PM EST
    James, to answer your question... YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Re: Latest Compromise on Judges Not Good Enough (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:12 PM EST
    From your mouth to God's ear Heretik (sensing a pun in there somewhere but can't quite put it together)

    Re: Latest Compromise on Judges Not Good Enough (none / 0) (#6)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:13 PM EST
    James, this may come as a shock to you, but Democrats don't really expect our party to nominate Willie Nelson to the Supreme Court. Yes, I know, the Rehnquist court is packed with wild-eyed liberal activist fetus-eaters, but it must have been accident. You don't really see nationwide crusades for "liberal judges" whereas the White House press secratary freely admits that judges are picked on the basis of their having a conservative bias.

    Re: Latest Compromise on Judges Not Good Enough (none / 0) (#7)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:13 PM EST
    I suppose I should clarify - if the Republicans filibuster every Democratic judicial nominee until doomsday, I say let 'em. The chances of a federal judge sharing my views are pretty slim anyway.

    Re: Latest Compromise on Judges Not Good Enough (none / 0) (#8)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:13 PM EST
    ScarShapedStar: oh? What about District Judge Sarokin in 1994 (who was confirmed, btw): "In 1994, they led the charge to have self-described "flaming liberal" H. Lee Sarokin confirmed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. As a district judge Sarokin had, among other strange leftist rulings, held that the Morristown public library couldnít enforce its written policies to expel a homeless man who regularly engaged in offensive and disruptive behavior and whose odor was so offensive that it prevented the library patrons from using certain areas of the library and prohibited library employees from performing their jobs. ď[O]ne personís hay-fever is another personís ambrosiaĒ was among Sarokinís justifications for preventing a community from setting even minimal standards." So it's all about who's ox is being gored, for you