home

More on the Senate Compromise

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu May 26, 2005 at 09:16:16 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Not to beat a dead horse, but John Nichols over at the Nation explains why the Compromise is a bad deal and shares the view that Democrats buckled under.

This "compromise" may have averted the "nuclear option" for a time. But it will saddle the federal bench with more bad judges. That's a bad deal, especially when there is such overwhelming public sentiment for maintaining the right of senators to block inappropriate judicial nominees. Democrats were right to oppose Brown, Pryor and Owen. They will come to regret cutting the deal to let these unacceptable nominees -- and the others who are now sure to be nominated by the Bush Administration -- to be approved.

In today's update, Nichols calls Owen's confirmation "blackmail" and says,

....Four years of successful efforts by civil rights, women's rights, religious and consumer groups to prevent confirmation of the right-wing extremist were undone Wednesday.

I share Nichols' views. David Corn, also a Nation writer, details on his own weblog an interview with Senator Durbin who sounds down on the compromise but in the camp of those who thought it was necessary.

Sometimes its better to battle it out. This was one of those times. The Senate would not have fallen apart or come to a standstill if we lost. The Bush Administration just would have had more difficulty getting its agenda through.

The compromise is only good for the 109th Congress - through 2006. Probably all but Chief Justice Rehnquist can hold out that long. If the Republicans win Congress in 2006, they'll just reintroduce the nuclear option in early 2007 and we'll be back to square one. Pass the buck is all we did.

So who likes the compromise? Cokie and Steven Roberts, whose reasoning seems to be if the left and right both think it's bad, it must be good.

Then there's the blogosphere. The emergence of new and diverse voices is very healthy, but the way to get noticed in cyberspace is to be outrageous. And many bloggers mirrored the reaction of the interest groups, competing with each other to denounce the compromise as a sellout.

John Hindrocket, writing on the right-wing blog Power Line, said, "To me it looks like a pathetic collapse on the part of the Republicans.' The blog TalkLeft was equally critical: "We have a total Republican regime. Welcome to the Theocracy.'

Did it even occur to them that the reason we both hate it so much is that it's a really bad quick-fix that only postpones the inevitable battle? And from the Democrats' perspective, at least 3 more extremist judges get elevated to the Courts of Appeals.

< 'No More Tulias' Bill Introduced in Congress | Joe Trippi Unveils 'Change America' >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    More on the Senate Compromise | 4 comments (4 topical)
    Re: More on the Senate Compromise (none / 0) (#1)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:21 PM EST
    When in the last 4.5 years haven't the Dems caved?

    Re: More on the Senate Compromise (none / 0) (#2)
    by Andreas on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:21 PM EST
    The agreement by 14 US senators Monday to stave off a full-scale battle over the filibuster of Bush judicial nominations is a textbook illustration of how spinelessness and lack of principle on the part of the Democratic Party prop up the Bush administration. ... Far from seeking to mobilize this public discontent against the administration, the Democrats feverishly worked to head off a confrontation—in effect, shielding Bush and the Republicans from the political consequences of their own policies. The Democrats act as if the Bush administration were an invincible tower of political strength, when the reality is quite the opposite: it is a politically weak and vulnerable government. But because the Democrats represent, in the end, the same basic class interests as the Republicans, the last thing they want is a popular movement of opposition that could threaten the interests of the ruling elite as a whole.
    Senate “compromise” on judicial nominations: Democrats prop up a crisis-ridden administration By Patrick Martin, 26 May 2005

    Re: More on the Senate Compromise (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:21 PM EST
    Thanks for the propaganda. The fact is that Frist's caucus BOLTED, and that's why this happened. John McCain took his revenge for Bush's "little brown girl" attack on him during the governor's race. When haven't the Dems 'caved'? How about the Iraq Resolution, when 60% of House Dems voted NAY, and Nancy Pelosi became the majority leader of the House? How about when 50% of Dems voted NAY in the Senate? You're playing some other game. The Communist is playing his usual game of attack the Dems hoping to get some third party action (not going to happen), and soccerdad doesn't seem to recognize a violent coup when he sees one. As for TL, and this current 'addition' to the discussion, this is nothing but the view that these judges should not have gotten in, TOTALLY IGNORING the R advantage in a vote. Dems are outvoted in committee (Voinovich proved that), and outvoted on the floor if it comes down to it. What you are really asking the Dems to do is fall on their swords, while you trust the 'moderate Rs' to go against the nominee. They might -- but that is far more of a crapshoot than the compromise, which all evidence suggests blew a giant hole in Frist's support among his own party.

    Re: More on the Senate Compromise (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:24 PM EST
    Last I heard the vote would be 49 to 51 against ending the filibuster. One stinking switched republican vote would have thrown a tie to Cheney to break. Now, was retaining the filibuster necessary to democracy as we know it (some of the early hype); or was blocking these two or three judges the issue. If the Democrats had fought it out and 51 votes to kill the judicial filibuster had been found what would the pundits be saying now. Easy to be a general when you are not with the army. And I do think Trigger has been abused enough.

    More on the Senate Compromise | 4 comments (4 topical)