Blogger Reaction to the Compromise
I'll be adding to this as I find other bloggers whose views I agree with on the Compromise:
- Liberal Oasis:
It is the same old conservatism with the same old centrist mask.
- Maxspeak:
I'm more interested in whether it is a victory for the Dems. The point of opposition is to obstruct outrageous legislation and appointments. As far as I can see, the Dems have failed to do this, in return for a vague commitment from the GOP to forego a procedural vote that they can always take in the future, in the event opinions differ on the meaning of "extraordinary." Ultimately, it is a recasting of the absurd deal we had heard about before: you retain the right to filibuster as long as you don't do so."
- Skippy (R.J.Eskow):
So now we learn that the democrats have achieved a "compromise" that is, in fact, a surrender. they avoided a shootout by throwing themselves face-down in the dirt. it's not their first "compromise." if there's one thing they've learned, it's how to compromise.
- Joshua Zeist (Huffington Post):
Over the past five years the GOP has weakened the independent judiciary; it has neutered the Senate as a check against presidential power; and it has violated a longstanding tradition of comity and consensus in the upper chamber. To be sure, Senate Republicans have been successful because they have the votes. But they've also steamrolled a weak and ineffective opposition. If the Democratic party cannot or will not safeguard the integrity of the courts, the separation of powers, and the key components of the New Deal and Great Society, then what use does it serve?
- Avedon Carol at Sideshow:
The thing is, no matter what happens, my instincts are screaming with the Retaliban in charge.
I may be done now. Like Avedon, I really don't want to talk about this any more. It's been a tremendous waste of energy and time.
Update: ok, one more.
David Corn at The Nation. I like his succinct description of the compromise:
Under this brokered arrangement, three of Bush's rightwing nominees for appellate courts--Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor Jr.--will not be filibustered. In return--so to speak--the filibuster will remain a weapon the Democrats can use in the future against other judicial nominees but only "under extraordinary circumstances." What qualifies as "extraordinary circumstances"? That was not defined.
His view isn't as pessismistic as mine, but he's right here:
But the Democrats did not walk out of the room with a hard-and-fast right to resort to a filibuster. With this compromise, they are only able to wield a judicial filibuster if seven Republican senators agree the situation is "extraordinary." In essence, a small band of moderate GOPers will now have veto power over the Democrats' use of the judicial filibuster.
Democrats and their allies in the judicial wars can point to the fact that one or two of the Bush nominees may be stopped and that the filibuster might be available in the future. But what they got out of this deal is more iffy than what the Republicans pocketed.
Go read David for the rest.
| < ACLU ACLU Wins Photo Disclosure Battle | Radical Right Threatens Compromise Republicans > |
