Filibuster deal could thwart efforts to nix conservative Supreme nominee

[MelissaB]

Filibuster deal could thwart efforts to nix conservative Supreme nominee

RAW STORY


Democrats' hopes of blocking a staunchly conservative Supreme Court nominee on ideological grounds could be seriously undermined by a six-week-old bipartisan deal on judicial nominees, key senators said Sunday, the Washington Post's Charles Babington and Susan Schmidt will reveal Monday, RAW STORY has learned. Excerpts follow:

#
With President Bush expected to name a successor to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor next week, liberals are laying the groundwork to challenge the nominee if he or she leans solidly to the right on affirmative action, abortion and other contentious issues. But even if they can show the nominee has sharply held views on matters that divide many Americans, some of the 14 senators who crafted the May 23 compromise appear poised to prevent that strategy from blocking confirmation to the high court, according to numerous interviews.

The pact, signed by seven Democrats and seven Republicans, says a judicial nominee will be filibustered only in "extraordinary circumstances." Key members of the group said Sunday that a nominee's philosophical views cannot amount to "extraordinary circumstances," and therefore a filibuster can be justified only on questions of personal ethics or character.


...snip

With help from only one or two fellow Gang of 14 members, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) says he is positioned to dissolve the deal and thwart a filibuster either by having enough Democratic signers refuse to back a filibuster, or by having enough GOP members support Frist in outlawing judicial filibusters. Graham predicts Bush will nominate "a solid conservative" to replace O'Connor.

Link: http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Filibuster_deal_could_thw...

[ixion]

1. BS!!

To the Dem Leadership:

Please get a spine and stand up to these thugs who are so intent on replacing our republic with a theocracy.

[cascadiance]

4. What's the point of this deal, if extraodinary circumstances NEVER happen?

It's like saying, we want you to tell the public that we still have the right to fillibuster as a marketing ploy, but we'll commit to never using it! What's the f'ing point of having the right to use it if one never uses it? That's a load of BS If there were a time to use it when needed, THIS would be the time! On the other hand, if Bush DOES nominate a centrist judge, we shold not stand in the way and save our silver bullet for later! But I'm not holding my breath! We should threaten to use fillibuster on this one! And if they go nuclear on that, then shut down the whole congress from doing business with other fillibusters.

[Born Free]

17. The "Deal" was "NO DEAL for America"

The so called "Deal" was nothing more than a way for the spineless democrats to hide from confrontation. Some were feeling the heat so they wanted to give in but needed something to cover their spineless asses and the "Deal" was just that, democrats gave in -- again --- as they will keep on doing until we elect some democrats with spines that are willing to fight for America. The saddest part is these spineless, almost worthless creatures think they are doing a good job and deserve re-election, heck they even believe the American people will TRUST them to stand up against outside forces that want to harm Americans....I doubt they will ever learn.

[pokercat999]

19. One correction (imho)

most elected officials don't think they "deserve" to be re-elected they think they have a "RIGHT" to the office, and most will do or say anything to keep it.

[Pachamama]

67. When this so-called "Deal" was forged I immediately called BS on the Dems

for going along with it....in fact, I said at the time that they made the old "Bully on the Playground" mistake. The Repukes were the big bully demanding the lunch money (ie the nuclear option showdown) from the Dems. The Dems, instead of fighting back and stopping the bully, instead handed over the lunch money (the so-called "deal") in hopes that they get to be left alone (or in this case, keep their precious "filibuster" option).

Prroblem is, we all know the ending of the Bully on the Playground story. The Bully once satiated only stays away temporarily and ALWAYS comes back for more. The Repukes know the Dems have no backbone, the bully never gave up his "nuclear option" and he will happily use it, even with more confidence than before. And in a sad and pathetic way, the Dems in having agreed to the "deal" essentially tied their hands behind their back for the next confrontation which is going to be far bigger than the one before over Janice Rogers Brown et al.

Its absolutely sickening....the Dems need to fight like hell, but being hobbled, crippled and hands tied behind there back with even some traitors to their party in their midst and DINOS, they and ultimately the people they are supposed to be fighting for don't stand much of a chance, do they?

[ikojo]

25. Extraordinary circumstances do happen

what matters is WHO defines what are extraordinary cirucmstances. As with many things the Democrats have allowed the Republicans to set the agenda, in the name of bi-partisanship.

Time for the Dems to grow a spine or not come to me for a vote in 2006 or 2008.

[spanone]

28. The point was to get their judges and 'fuck the democrats'

The republicans have no intention of playing fair, hell there is no fair. Just win.

[jurassicpork]

75. I never liked the McCain/Reid deal.

I've been upfront about that. Just because it temporarily blocked Dr. Quack's attempts to nuke it, the filibuster had been so crippled by these backroom barters that it's virtually worthless. Plus, I may be wrong, but I've never heard a definition written into a compromise for "extraordinary circumstances." If nominating and confirming a SC justice, a lifetime tenure that could tip the balance of power on the court for decades and influence American jurisprudence forever, isn't an "extraordinary circumstance", then I don't know what is.

IMHO, I think that Reid and the democratic "leadership" should've called Frist's bluff and nuked his nuke option. It never would've gotten close to Frist calling on his Gimp, aka VP Halliburton, to cast a deciding vote. Reid sold out the party, plain and simple, and just opened the velvet rope to Priscilla Owen, the very, VERY worst of the bunch.

JP
http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com/2005/07/operation-dumb...

[OldLeftieLawyer]

84. Here's the hook

on which the Democrats hung themselves with that "compromise":

When they allowed those three hideously unqualified candidates to go right to a vote - without exercising their filibuster rights and, instead, making that deal - they created a condition precedent in which the ideology and philosophical bent and just about everything else will never be considered "extraordinary," simply because those three were allowed in.

In short, the Democrats conspired with the Republicans to join in a deal which looks to me as if the only way they could ever call up that "extraordinary circumstances" option is if someone has a photograph, verified, of the candidate, as they say, in bed with a live sheep and a dead girl/boy.

The Democrats blew it. Frist did a brilliant end run around them and didn't even break a sweat.

[Eloriel]

113. Uh, it's dead girl or live boy

I've never heard your version. Perhaps I just haven't been around as much as you.

But you're spot on about the rest. I knew it was bad juju from the start, and I do NOT understand why the Dems can't think past the ends of their noses all the way to like, tomorrow or next week.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

116. Times have changed

Boys and girls are interchangeable, and farm animals have made their presence known on the Hill.

[GoreDean2008]

51. Clintonista Centrists Just Don't Have Spines to Stand Up for Anything

They are not the same centrists we knew before. They are right-wing Bush-lites that kowtow to the right-wing elites and bide time for Bill and Hillary to return to the White House just for their own - not people's - power.

[Gloria]

2. Nice deal.

[cal04]

3. Filibuster Deal Puts Democrats In a Bind

Democrats' hopes of blocking a staunchly conservative Supreme Court nominee on ideological grounds could be seriously undermined by the six-week-old bipartisan deal on judicial nominees, key senators said yesterday. With President Bush expected to name a successor to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor next week, liberals are laying the groundwork to challenge the nominee if he or she leans solidly to the right on affirmative action, abortion and other contentious issues.

But even if they can show that the nominee has sharply held views on matters that divide many Americans, some of the 14 senators who crafted the May 23 compromise appear poised to prevent that strategy from blocking confirmation to the high court, according to numerous interviews.

The pact, signed by seven Democrats and seven Republicans, says a judicial nominee will be filibustered only under "extraordinary circumstances." Key members of the group said yesterday that a nominee's philosophical views cannot amount to "extraordinary circumstances" and that therefore a filibuster can be justified only on questions of personal ethics or character.

The distinction is crucial because Democrats want to force Bush to pick a centrist, not a staunch conservative as many activist groups on the political right desire. Holding only 44 of the Senate's 100 seats, Democrats have no way to block a Republican-backed nominee without employing a filibuster, which takes 60 votes to stop


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

[spooky3]

16. this is contrary to other reports that "extraordinary circumstances" were

NOT defined. I suspect the "key members" they talked to were all or primarily Rethugs. Nominees' "philosophical views" are far more relevant to judicial decisions than what Rethugs think of as personal ethics (e.g., whether they had sex with the wrong person) and extremely non-mainstream philophies certainly would fit a reasonable person's definition of "extraordinary circumstances."

Yes--sure enough, only two Democrats are quoted in the article and what they say refutes the Rethugs' quotes. Nelson's rep says an extreme philosophy WOULD qualify as EC, and Biden anticipates a possible filibuster.

[Skinner]

22. EXACTLY.

This article is a bunch of Republican spin, being passed off as news.

[JRob]

97. yep, they're merely settin' the stage...

and when it goes down they'll (Republicans) will scream "welchers!" based on how they've pre-framed the understanding of the deal for the public.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

87. Check Janice Brown

If that woman's not an example of "extreme," I don't know what is.

She got a free pass, and now everyone gets a free pass, or else the Democrats have to figure out a way to get themselves out of the goddamned stupid deal that they made.

Personally, I'd challenge the legality of it, but I have no idea how far that would go. Probably not very far at all.

They blew it.

[Skinner]

21. What a bunch of crap.

Fuck that. Does anyone have the text of the deal around somewhere? I'm pretty sure the deal did not spell out what, exactly, constitutes "extraordinary circumstances." They've got it all ass-backward. Putting an extremist on the highest court in the land is most certainly an extraordinary circumstance.

I read the entire Washington Post Article, and it would appear that the article is overstating the issue. According to the only two Democrats quoted in the article extreme ideology is a legitimate reason to filibuster:

Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), a leader of the seven Democratic signers, largely concurred. Nelson "would agree that ideology is not an 'extraordinary circumstance' unless you get to the extreme of either side," his spokesman, David DiMartino, said in an interview.

The debate goes to the heart of Democratic leaders' strategy to prevent Bush from replacing the centrist, swing-voting O'Connor with a justice more aligned with conservatives Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. For example, if Bush were to nominate Brown -- the outspoken California judge recently named to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit -- "I could assure you that would be a very, very, very difficult fight, and she probably would be filibustered," Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

[Toots]

24. unless you get to the extreme of either side

Is there such a thing? I think everything about the neoCons is extreme and am sick of everyone trying to make them seem like the reasonable center. The Democrats damn well better fillibuster or no vote from me ever again. I'm sure they could give a shit less as I am only one vote but I feel like I am not alone with these sentiments. I suppose I am putting the cart before the horse as they have not yet chosen a candidate but based on everything else they have done I feel confident of the type person they will chose.

[wryter2000]

31. I read it the same way, Skinner

Biden isn't even close to my favorite Dem, but he sounds like he's willing to stand up on this one.

In my letter, I reminded him of what a great job he did in the Bork hearings. I told him I expected no less from him now. The man must have a conscience buried in there somewhere.

[JRob]

98. ...it's right behind his Platinum American Express card.

[Pachamama]

69. Don't have the text, but if memory serves me, the purposeful vagueness of

the definition of "extraordinary circumstances" is the double edged sword. While Dems who supported and agreed to the deal will point to that fact and claim that somehow its left to them to be determined are (in my opinion) kidding themselves. The reason is that in the war of words and spin, the Repukes will show that the bar is set on people like Janice Rogers Brown and even on people like Alberto Gonzales who were all "confirmed" previosly. And how are the Dems going to respond to that? What if by the end of this week Bush announces Gonzales? Are the Dems going to say no to the Attorney General they approved? And I think the Repukes and their media propaganda machine are trying to throw out a BS decoy making it sound like extreme conservatives don't want Gonzales because of his stance on abortion. I call bullshit...I think they want Dems to buy this and make it appear that Gonzales is the "centrist and moderate" that the Dems insist on...Then, after Gonzales has been put on the bench and served for 6 mos, Rehnquist retires and Bush chooses Gonzales to become the Chief Justice....

That's my theory and I'm sticking with it.... I think that's been their plan all along...Gonzales is the boy emperor's man...

[jurassicpork]

78. Why not?

"Are the Dems going to say no to the Attorney General they approved?"

Why not? The GOP already has.

JP
http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com/2005/07/operation-dumb...

[Pachamama]

101. Oh really? They held a vote and the GOP said no? Are you certain?

Like I said earlier, its a decoy when they claim that Gonzales is unacceptable...its to position him as a moderate and have Dems thinking that "Hey, maybe Gonzales isn't bad if the GOP Conservatives don't want him...."

Orrin Hatch said he'd vote for him....

It's a decoy...

[Eloriel]

117. You're EXACTLY RIGHT re Gonzalez -- READ THIS, people

Like I said earlier, its a decoy when they claim that Gonzales is unacceptable...its to position him as a moderate and have Dems thinking that "Hey, maybe Gonzales isn't bad if the GOP Conservatives don't want him...."

It's a ruse.

[Pachamama]

128. Ruse....that's the word I was looking for....

Hi Eloriel!

Yeah, its definitely a ruse....no question about it....Glad to see I'm not the only one who is calling this game out from the Right...

Let's hope the Dems are smart enough to figure it out too....

[OldLeftieLawyer]

85. You're overlooking the precedent that was created

The three judges who were immediately voted on and confirmed established the precedent that ideology and philosophical bent and - this is chilling - even opinions and decisions would not constitute "extraordinary circumstances," because they were not held to it.

They created the precedent and now the Democrats are stuck with it.

The Democrats caved in a terrible way, because now we have three antedeluvian and dangerous judges seated in the Federal judiciary for life, and the precedent has been established. It would be nice to say that the Democrats should bust this one open, but the time for doing that was when Frist bluffed them with that absurdly-titled "nuclear option."

They got scared, they folded, they let in those three monsters, and now they're stuck with the deal they made. If they try to breach it, the Republicans will blanket the Democrats with "deal-breakers," "cheats,"dishonest," "dishonorable," "liars," "traitors," and more.

And, the sad part is that, in theory, anyway, the Republicans will be correct.

It's a very, very bad situation.

[Pachamama]

103. This is what I have believed & feared...and knowing one of our DU Legal

scholars sees this trap too doesn't give me much to smile about....

Your summary is spot on....its a very, very bad situation indeed...the bully's are the ones writing the play book and rewriting it as they go along...and the Dems keep letting them while they try to play by the old game rules...

When are the Dem leaders going to wake up and see what is being done to them and that they are ALLOWING to be done to them....

I hate the fact that our Democratic Party Leadership act like the victims, pushovers, wimps versus being an opposition party and fighters.

It's a very bad situation indeed....

[spooky3]

123. It creates no precedent. A political compromise to allow votes

on one type of nomination binds no one as to a vote on a different type of nomination for which the nominee may not qualify. Political compromises are not court cases, and the definition of "extraordinary circumstances" was specifically left to judgment of individuals.

[enough already]

108. The problem is that Biden doesn't speak for the 14

He can say filibuster all he wants, but if the 14 stick together it doesn't matter.

[spooky3]

122. Hey, Skinner, I sent a tip to MediaMatters.org--check this out:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507050004

[Strawman]

118. That deal allowed us to fight another day, so let's fight them

not one another. There still is a filibuster. None of us here want our Democratic Senators to cave in and allow an extremist nominee. Regardless of how we feel about the "deal," I think 99.99% of the people here want the same thing. The deal leaves it up to each Senator's conscience to decide what warrants extraordinary circumstances. Our job now is to help those potential fence sitters fear the consequences of not listening to their consciences and to do whatever we can as activists to compel * to nominate someone more moderate that he would otherwise prefer.

I have a strong opinion that this deal was a good move strategically, but I'm not going to take the bait and become part of the circular firing squad. Not this time. Whether or not you think the deal was good or bad, it's reality and it does not compel any Senator to refrain from filibustering some right-wing whack job nominee to the SCOTUS. Replacing the swing vote on a closely divided court is certainly an extreme circumstance.

[Mz Pip]

5. Is this deal

a law? Is it in writing? Is it a signed document? If it isn't I say fuck it. Stand up to the neocons and screw their damn deals.

Mz Pip

[confludemocrat]

6. Isn't this called a double-cross? What the hell good was this "deal"?

The 7 Democrats better stand fast at least, knowing you could never count on the rest. Ignominious defeat is the obvious outcome if they don't and I'm outta this party. If we are going to be double-crossed let it be against a united and defiant group of Democrats.

Talking point: Graham is likely running for president and this is a partisan, irresponsible and dishonorable grandstanding (that other Republicans may not go along with). Who will echo-chamber this?

[pocket]

7. what if they just renominate one of the judges from the deal?

it would look bad to filibuster since we already gave them a pass as beeing 'not and extreme circumstance'.

freepers are all over that one, and they have a point about the PR implications.

[Orangepeel]

56. I'd say "lack of experience" could be an extreme circumstance

I know that technically, one does not even have to have been a lawyer or a judge to be nominated to SCOTUS. But, I think it would be a convincing argument that someone who has been on the lower court less than 2 months doesn't have the experience to be a member of the highest court in the land.

[stray cat]

77. Supreme court is a vastly more important position.

Just because I can get a low level job at a company doesn't mean they would consider me qualified to run the company.

[MadisonProgressive]

8. I would suggest

that the lifetime appointment of a member of the highest court in the land, being so impacting and so infrequent, would certainly qualify as "extraordinary circumstances."

[CityDem]

9. Thank you Ben Nelson

Sen. Nelson sold us down the river and now he is ready to vote for someone like Janice Rogers Brown for SCOTUS. Why bother voting for dem senators when they vote act like repukes.

[ElTexican]

15. That accusation is unfair

1. Sen. Nelson was not the only Democratic senator involved in the compromise.

2. Sen. Nelson still voted against certain nominees who won the privilege not to be filibustered.

[wryter2000]

33. Welcome to DU, Texican

[Emerson]

91. Your number 2 is some nice spin

Exactly what is the point of the filibuster? It's due to the reason there are not enough NO votes to stop them.

Therefore voting no has ZERO impact when you totally eliminated the only actual way to stop them - the filibuster.

[depakid]

90. I agree

So long as people like Nelson are willing to back up the far right agenda, the party will continue in its decline. I should also note that he's voted with the Republicans on other matters as well- and will probably continue to do so.

With such loyal friends like Nelson- who needs enemies?

[Malikshah]

10. Any REPRESENTATIVE who plays along with this sham

ought to be impeached, tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail.

They represent the people, not the beltway crowd of do nothings.

[high density]

11. So throw out the deal

Who gives a crap? I'm baffled as to what we're going to lose here besides a "deal" that was nothing but another Republican handout to begin with. Let them flaunt their "nuclear option" out to the American people again.

[upoceg]

73. agreed

It was a ridiculous deal in the first place, with intentionally vague "we'll hash out the details later" language. The only good that comes out of this is if the dems hash it out by proving that they're willing to shut the whole place down until the neocons understand that they can't get everything that they want. This SCOTUS nominee issue is exactly why everyone hated this deal in the first place. just ridiculous. makes me want to bang my head up against a wall...but i've been doing that for nearly six years. there doesn't seem to be any wall left.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

88. Exactly

Remember when Bill Clinton called Newt Gingrich's bluff and let the entire Federal Goverment shut down?

Gingrich was ruined, and Clinton did fine.

Of course, Clinton had a spine. And Democrats in the Congress.

[Emerson]

92. Yes clinton did fine

but how do the dems in congress do the following election?

[pinkpops]

12. So since only Republicans have superior ethics and character

it will only be possible to filibuster against Democrats, right?

[ngGale]

13. Sure was a great deal ...

Key members of the group said Sunday that a nominee's philosophical views cannot amount to "extraordinary circumstances," and therefore a filibuster can be justified only on questions of personal ethics or character.
---------------------****-----------------------

Philosophical views cannot amount to "extraordinary circumstances."

Well, I haven't seen any nominees with ethics - what was the sense in making a deal. Did we on this board not say at the time, it was a stupid deal? If w puts up Owen or Brown, the Dems have nothing to argue since they already approved both.

[ElTexican]

14. Unfortunately, even Reid has suggested pro-life nominees ...

that would be suitable for him, namely Sen. Crapo.

I'm really scared that Roe v. Wade will be overturned with a new justice who is "mainstream" but pro-life.

[Emerson]

93. Interesting terminology you use

"pro-life"....

"I'm really scared that Roe v. Wade will be overturned with a new justice who is "mainstream" but pro-life."


Righhhtttt.....

"Unfortunately even Reid" oh here that everyone? Reid. Guess we better just accept the republican appointments. Gee, reid... so unfortunate but what can you do? Let's just give up fellow democrats. <wink>

Of course I hope the right wing freaks realize they are an EXTREME minority. The far right base consists of 10% of the population tops. They will NEVER take away our control over our bodies. Any right winger reading this - the vast majority of population is AGAINST you. I'm sure you notice it with damn near everyone you encounter outside of your circle. It's over for you. You can try to illegalize anything you want - but the majority of the populace won't give a damn and will live our lives the way we want to anyway. Sorry to burst your little bubble - but you can NOT control our lives with legislation no matter how much you might want to.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

119. I asked my friend Pete. His response was wavy lines coming out of his head

[BooScout]

18. What were they thinking?

...When they made this deal? Considering Reinquist's health and the age of several in the Supreme Court they had to know this was a very real possibilty. Bah! I grow more disgusted every day with the chicken shit Dems and the Chicken Hawk Repukes.

[goclark]

20. Since when did being fair and honest come into it?

If you put the shoe on the other foot, the "deal" would mean nnothing to a Republican.

When will we ever learn!

[struggle4progress]

23. Cow pies! Here's a link to the text of the so-called deal:

http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/randirhodes/messagebo...

Note that while "Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations," paragraph A, does say "Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances ..," it continues ".. and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist."

Read it again: "each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment."

If the Republicans want to start screaming "nuclear option" again, let them: the public will begin to notice that Republicans are liars whose promises and agreements mean nothing.

[Skinner]

26. THANK YOU!

I'm going to re-post that section, because it's important enough for people here to read twice:

A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

Why wasn't that bit of text included in the Washington Post article? It is vitally important to understanding the story.

Hell, that paragraph should be tatooed on every Democrat's forehead until this fight is over: "each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist."

[confludemocrat]

76. Yeah, that's key: "each signatory must use his or her own discretion..."

That's clear enough to me and most I would think.

Sounds like they have made a pact to honor each others discretion on the subject of what constitutes "extraordinary circumstances".

So how the holy fuck can't this be any but bad, biased, misleading reporting apparently including an attempt to enlist Ben Nelson (probably unwittingly on his part, since he probably wouldn't have know the full context or intent of the article when asked the question) in the thesis of the piece.

Unbelievable.

[Andromeda]

107. This is why I don't let my emotions...

dominate over my common sense. Everyone reading this needs to read the WHOLE article instead of leaping to false conclusions.

While I wasn't thrilled about the "deal" Reid made, at the time it was only thing that bought the Democrats time to work out their strategy the next time the Republicans threatened to use the nuclear option.

That next time is right around the corner and we need to keep a level head about this instead of panicking. It's not over till it's over and there are things Dems can do to stop these extreme candidates from getting on the SCOTUS.

Have a little faith.

[mirrera]

111. No false conclusions here...

We really gained nothing. It only would have been a deal if the Nuclear option had been permanently outlawed. As in, we will let you have these judges but the deal is we need a law that makes it illegal to do away with the filibuster. Instead when you read the language what we gained was what we already had...the filibuster. Using their own discretion is what a filibuster is. Every time there is a filibuster it is because SOMEONE thinks there is an "extraordinary circumstance". Nothing new in that. I just do not see how anyone ever saw this as a deal or a compromise. EVER. They wanted the 3 judges and threatened to take away the filibuster. They didn't actually take it, they THREATENED. So, we GAVE them the judges, and act like they GAVE us a new and improved filibuster. We already had it, and they can still threaten. What deal? What compromise? I feel like we are being played by both sides and that is scary.

The way I see it we blew it on the 3 judges, Gonzales, Rice...
Time to get it right. Filibuster all the way, business as usual, unless little all hat no cattle comes up with a sensible choice.

Let them go Nuclear. LET THEM. Dems should walk...

http://NoBullshiRt.com

[Carla in Ca]

95. This article also shows some infighting that may occur

if his nominee is too conservative. I posted this yesterday in another thread.

<http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ro... >

WASHINGTON — Social conservatives relish the idea that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's resignation from the Supreme Court has moved them one step closer to their goal of outlawing abortion. Liberals are vowing to fight any potential successor who would, unlike O'Connor, favor overturning Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 ruling that affirmed a woman's right to end a pregnancy.

But the political irony that few on either side readily acknowledge — but many are pondering — is that Roe's demise could transform American elections by crippling the conservative political majority that opposes abortion and by giving new life to hobbled liberals who support the ruling's preservation.

That the 32-year-old landmark decision could be overturned seems a distant possibility. Justices who believe the ruling should stand hold five seats on the nine-member court, even with O'Connor gone.

MORE...

[CoolOnion]

27. Simple answer

The Supreme Court is a different matter--so we have NO DEAL!

[marty13]

30. "...we don't need no steeenkin deals"

Is there ever a time to dig in their heels, THIS IS IT! There
is absolutely no precedent or any recent evidence that W
accepts anything but his OWN WAY. What he'll nominate is just
another neo-fascist dressed up in a
"strict-interpretation" costume. Whomever or
whatever is served up before the Senate, must be investigated
and vetted to the nth degree. Who knows, if the ratification
process is arduous and intrusive enough, maybe some of the
more radically right candidates will decline the
invite.........

[wryter2000]

35. Hi, Marty!

Welcome to DU.

[CoolOnion]

40. It'll be interesting to see who he picks

Just when I think I've seen every unqualified fascist evangelical zombie, Shrubya digs up somebody even worse.

Face it, folks, our pResident hates us for our freedom.

[rocktivity]

42. Welcome to DU, Marty 13!

Key members of the group said Sunday that a nominee's philosophical views cannot amount to "extraordinary circumstances," and therefore a filibuster can be justified only on questions of personal ethics or character.
Key members who refuse to to go record, I see. So for all we know the majority of these "key members" might be two Republicans out of three the reporter questioned. And exactly where is "a nominee's philosophical views cannot amount to extraordinary circumstances," actually WRITTEN into the deal?


rocknation

[Chipper Chat]

74. Welcome to DU Marty13.

If Shrubbie were smart he'd nominate a centrist that leans a little right to please the Hagel-types. But of course he's not smart. Mix in his hubris and vindictiveness and out pops Janice Rodgers Brown again. I was all set to go nuclear on the nuclear option 'last time' but kow-towed to the decision by the 14 Senate-savers. But not this time. Please Sir Harry: 99% of Dems will be behind you WHEN you shut down the Senate over this - this time. Enough is Enough! The future of the Democratic Party is at stake.

[wryter2000]

29. Hmmm

Sounds like Biden and Schumer are on the right side in this one. It would be good to inundate them with letters. Mine went into the snail mail on Saturday.

If you have a Dem Senator, he/she needs to hear from you on this. Then, depending on who asshat nominates, he/she needs to hear from you again.

On edit: 37 cents for a stamp for Specter would be a good investment, too.

[Neecy]

32. The Republican spin kickoff....

This article is designed to make liberals give up the fight before the nominee is even named. This leads me to suspect we're going to see a real right-wing whacko.

Screw that. Too much is at stake for us to be cowed by these thugs.

[msanthrope]

57. Exactly--the Washington Post article is by STENO SUE SCHMIDT

The Judy Miller of Clinton's impeachment.

[scdusek]

34. Whatever.

I wouldn't get too worked up over this article. As others have stated, it's mostly repuke rhetoric.

If there isn't a somewhat moderate justice nominated, I would expect to see the filibuster being used. It is way too easy to define "extraordinary circumstances."

I don't think the right can afford for Roe v Wade to be overturned which will infuriate the religious right. Now that will be fun to watch! I can't wait for that a-hole Dobson to blow his top over this.

[wryter2000]

37. Welcome to DU

[CoolOnion]

45. An interesting issue--property rights

In my opinion, property rights will be more of a hot button issue than Roe v. Wade; even right-wing nutcases like Cornyn and DeLay are coming out against the Supreme Court Ruling on property rights:

Texans leading attack on eminent domain ruling
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/12033059.htm
(reg erq)

Excerpt:
"House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Sugar Land joined forces with Sen. John Cornyn of Texas and other lawmakers Thursday in pledging to undo a Supreme Court ruling that allows governments to seize private property for economic development.

(snip)

"We will be working together to accomplish our goal, which is to rein back in this broad interpretation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution in a way that protects all of us from the awesome power of government to take private property for private uses," said Cornyn, R-Texas.

"<b>That is anathema to our basic core values in this country, and it turns the Founding Fathers' vision of what this country was like on its head</b>."

Excuse me, John Cornyn, but isn't that how Shrubya got the Ball Park at Arlington, by using eminent domain? Why, yes, I believe it was. (See "Stealing Home," Texas Observer, May 9, 1997: http://www.mollyivins.com/showMisc.asp?FileName=970509_... )

Maybe the recent eminent domain case will make our conservatives look for another thoughtful judge like O'Connor, a strong, intelligent independent voice, free from ideology of either stripe.

[yy4me]

36. I'd say taking away more of my rights constitutes

Extraordinary Circumstances. I'd break this deal is a split second if I thought bushs appointee was going to take away rights we've worked a lifetime to secure!

[adigal]

38. When Owen and Brown were part of this deal

I knew the deal was not good for us. If they were not "extraordinary," then who is?? The Dems continue to shoot themselves in the foot because they refuse to fact the fact that they are not dealing with politics as usual. They are dealing with a bunch that is trying to grab the power of all the levers of govt and remake this country in a theocratic and corporate-screw-the-average-guy way.

Forget the deal - it stunk anyway, and a majority of Americans do NOT want the repubs to pull their nuclear option stunt. They also do not want an extremist on the Supreme Court. The sheeple are waking up to this dolt we have as president, so let's yell long and loud about any extremist nominee and let the repubs do as they will. If they go nuclear, they are going to be creamed in 2006 (which I think they are going to be anyway.)

[rocktivity]

39. You should know a pre-emptive strike when you see one by now

This story, actually running in the July 4 Washington Post, is nothing more than a veiled threat to Dems not to filubuster any Bush SCOTUS nominees because the MSM will spin it into making the Dems look untrustworthy and therefore justifying the nuclear option. But surely nominating someone to the highest court in the land is an "extraordinary circumstance" in its very nature. Wise up and calm down--you still can't tell a puff piece when you see one?


rocknation

[msanthrope]

58. You are sooooo right--this article is

by Steno Sue Schmidt----remember, the Judith Miller of impeachment?

Basicially, the Repukes are going deep in the bench, bringing up an old, has-been whore.

But I guess if she was good enough for Ken Starr, she's good enough for Bush.....

[confludemocrat]

79. Agree, contentless speculation; bad journalsim, were used to it (n/t)

[acmavm]

41. Yep, the deal is turning out to be the 'no-win-no-way rollover and kiss

republican ass weasel-out' that I knew it would be.Big non-surprise here.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

43. Gonzalez would qualify as "extra-ordinary circumstances"

No to the man who justified torture, called the Geneva conventions quaint, and most extraordinary of all, gave the advice that the President in his role as Commander in Chief in a time of war is above the law. Anyone who thinks we are a nation of laws and not men cannot see this judicial monster installed on the SCOTUS.

[Olney Blue]

52. Gonzales has been declared a "no-go" by the religious right....

we won't have to do any heavy lifting on that fight- the repugs will be ripping each other's throats out if he is nominated...

[ooglymoogly]

44. if the dems had stood their ground without this giveaway

just exactly what did the dems get from this deal...nada...the country would have been in revolt the same as the terri shaivo thing and the repugs would have gotten nothing more than they already have, but would have been in disgrace...i said it from the beginning and i'll say it again. this deal stinks like a turd fart. they should have let the repugs commit suicide.

[Proud_Lefty]

46. Dumb question here.

Couldn't the first SCOTUS justice position open under the George W. Bush II Regime, the person never elected, the person who never passed a law that helped any American (other than the top 1%), the person never nominates decent cabinet members or justices, a person who can bearly figure out how his trike works, constitute extraordinary circumstances? Part of me wants to add sarcasm to this post, but another part of me is dead serious. Could this be a time to raise the competency of the person making this critical decision? That's definintely an extraordinary situation.

[Pachamama]

70. Not a dumb question Proud Lefty! Very good question indeed!

[Proud_Lefty]

72. Thanks

Anyone have any ideas on how do we publicly raise the issue of King George's mental competency? Maybe Frist could diagnose him by watching a video blurp or two.

[jurassicpork]

80. WWFD?

He'd merely say that George is responding to visual stimuli and that he's treatable. And we all know how astute Billy's medical acumen is.

JP
http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com/2005/07/operation-dumb...

[Proud_Lefty]

86. Hard to address this without sarcasm

But I'd curious to see how we could question his competency level. Just one question and answer session with the public without any help at all from Karl Rove would send him right over the edge. We shouldn't have someone this unstable in such a powerful position.

[stray cat]

47. Of course if the nuclear option was inacted...

The Dems couldn't fillibuster anything anyway. This way the minority party has at least kept their options open to fillibuster an extremist supreme court nominee.

[mirrera]

112. IF...? What is different?

Pre-deal
Our perceived problem:
Threat
Filibuster
Nuclear

After-deal
Our perceived problem:
Threat
Filibuster
Nuclear

The only difference I see is that the first time we CAVED to the Threat so we would HAVE a next time... to MAYBE cave to the threat ...or maybe NOT cave to the threat.

They got their stinkers on the court, no compromise there.
They still have the threat, no compromise there.
The filibuster they "allowed" us to keep, was ours already.

A threat is just a threat...



http://NoBullshiRt.com

[damntexdem]

48. If Dubya names a rightwing ideologue to replace O'Connor ...

what could be a more 'extraordinary' circumstance than that? If the Senate Dems cannot hold out against such an eventuality, what can they do? What good are they at all?

[woosh]

49. fuck 'em

let them ban the filibuster and pay for it in the mid-term elections.

[HannibalBarca]

83. Would they actually pay though????

[adarling]

50. I hate the 14

I am sick of this bullshit that McCain and co keep putting up. I want them to filibuster and keep them running around trying to get this person through. They should also keep Bolton out and remember to fight that. Its about time those people earn their 6 figure income we are giving them.

[stray cat]

53. What happens if they outlaw the fillibuster as threatened.

With full republican support they have the votes to get rid of the fillibuster for judicial appointees or any thing in legislation. Without moderates of both parties I don't think fillibusters would be an option any longer.

[adarling]

63. i feel like they are going to try and do it anyways

let them do it and then when the tide changes in 06 they will regret it. Hypocrites all of them

[drmom]

99. I agree..if they don't think about the future, they get what they deserve!

I mean, how short sighted is it to not imagine that someday they will be the minority party. Afterall, with all the sh*t they are pulling, "the masses" (as I'm sure they call us) are bound to revolt sooner or later.

[Pachamama]

71. America then hopefully wakes up & sees the GOP as what they really are?

That's the only positive thing I see in the Repukes ever trying to do away with the filibuster and implementing the "Nuclear Option" (I mean "Constitutional Option"....

Americans are slowly waking up and I think watching an absolute power grab and control and suppression of the Minority (representing 49-51% of the country, depending on who you ask) is not going to sit well with Americans....

So, even if the GOP succeeds and does this, I think they ultimately lose. Sadly, it still might not be enough and too little too late by then because the "take over" from the right will have happened and they will be in COMPLETE control over all branches of government.

[jurassicpork]

81. What would happen w/o the filibuster?

Then the GOP won't have it if and when they lose their majority. And good luck to them trying to get it back.

JP
http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com/2005/07/operation-dumb...

[adarling]

120. i know, isn't it great?

we will suffer losses but we we'll overcome them, we always have. This year has been the worse year for me, personally. Seriously i feel like everything has gone to hell since Bush (stole the election), family members have died, my girlfriend might have cancer, everything. But i always look up, pray and it seems everything will turn out for the best. I am surprised i am starting to change my attitude and not be so cynical about everything, its kind of nice

[jurassicpork]

121. Andrew

I hope things turn around for you real soon and here's for the best for your SO.

JP
http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com

[adarling]

124. thank you

[gulliver]

54. Why can't the Dems come out with spin like this?

It pisses me off that Republicans were the first to get their propaganda out on the filibuster deal. They beat us to the punch on this one. I hope the Dems are having a nice 4th of July weekend. The Republicans stole a march on us with this utter bullshit.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

59. Sold out again by our “leadership,” corrupt or inane?

Either way we lose over and again. The Democratic Party is dying and the only thing these assholes are going to do effectively is mourn it’s passing after it’s too late to act. Next time one of these clowns criticizes Howard Dean for trying to act, they should be struck dumb which would only be redundant.

[Knight of Ni]

64. Fascists are naturally better at propoganda! (n/m)

[tedoll78]

55. By definition, a supreme court appointment is "extraordinary."

This doesn't happen all that often, the position is unelected, and the person appointed could end-up serving on that bench for the next 40 years.

40 years: we need to repeat it over and over again. If you have a 1-year-old child, that same judge could be issuing BAD opinions for the first half of that child's life.

I'd say that's extraordinary.

[msanthrope]

60. WHITE HOUSE SPIN TO DISCOURAGE REPUB. MODERATES----

Thsi is not only White House spin to cause dissent among Dems, but a back-handed way of getting even with the Republican Moderates who signed, who will now be called upon by the administration to abandon the deal........

PEOPLE--get a hold of yourselves. Ask yourself, "Why this article, why now?"

LOOK who wrote it----STENO SUE SCHMIDT--and old whore from the Clinton years. I wonder if Ken Starr got a finder's fee........

[Pryderi]

61. Christ. What a bunch of dewy-eyed innocents. I said the deal was bad

when they agreed to it.

Democrats should have filibustered and made the Republicans exercise the "nuclear option"

[msanthrope]

62. You are playing into the Republican spin machine.

The Dems preserved the filibuster for this fight, and this article is written by the White House to foment dissent among us.

Look who wrote it.

[MelissaB]

65. That's what I thought when I saw it...consider the source, but do we

ignore it and not know what the spin is? I don't think so. Know thy enemy.

[msanthrope]

66. We don't ignore it, but I think the response is to do what Skinner

posted above---read the actual deal. Nowhere does it say, or even imply what this article says--that the Dems are hindered from filibustering the SC nom.

No--we should hold this article up, and say

"Fuck the Republicans for trying to lie to me."

NOT

"Fuck the Democrats who signed."

[wake.up.america]

68. This is nuts!!!

You guys will be in
D
E
E
P

KAKA should another goose stepping Judge don the robes in the Supreme Court.

This is nuts!!!

What the hell do these guys want? They will take over a destroyed country, if this continues.

[confludemocrat]

82. I was against the deal but it is likely they discussed future SC nominees

And this would have preserved the filibuster in those circumstances. And no amount of spin or grandstanding is going to change that language in the "deal". I may not like any of the 14, but I am not yet willing to believe the 7 Demos are that dumb, however lacking the lot of them are in integrity. If you are a Democrat and concede to being run over on matters that will determine the future of Civil Rights, our basic rights and liberties, choice, affirmative action, public support of education and social and economic justice, then we don't belong in the same party.

[JRob]

104. fuck 'em both... whatever happens they win!

whether any one of them serves another day in public office doesn't matter, they're set for life and play by a completely different set of rules... Do you think they care about what was said in an article?

What's good for the people (including those who seem to be clueless as to what that is...) is what matters and it is absolutely in our court, always has been.

The degree of outrage over everything that's going now (including the prospect of having a neocon replace O'Connor) is but a fart in a windstorm compared to what is necessary to truly move government. Everyone should be on these fucker daily, mobbing the white house and dogging senators and congressmen whenever they're in public. The fervor over Schivo is indicative of what should be happening

I agree with Skinner too, but I never saw this "compromise" as anything but a bad deal made by a group of spineless corporate proxies and it's way past time to take any position other than show me some god damn result!

[CityDem]

89. Didn't preserve much

If we preserved the filibuster for extreme circumstances, yet nominees like Brown, Owen and Pryor are not considered extreme circumstances, what the hell did we preserve? I assume the dems who signed on to this deal want the ability to filibuster Himler or Stalin.

[JRob]

105. exactly! and what did we get in the "deal"? the right of a reach-around?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

94. The analysis of what actually happened

becomes something from "the Republican spin machine" because it shows up the Democrats for the unthinking fools they are?

No, sorry. There's no spin here. There is a shocking lack of foresight and spine, and there was never any reason for the Democrats to have capitulated to Frist's threat.

That language was left deliberately vague because the Republicans caught on that the votes and approvals of those three judicial nominees were setting a precedent that put the Democrats' balls in a vise.

If, that is, they had balls.

[Fla4kerry]

96. So will Gorgie pick a Judge or pick a Fight???

My guess is a fight..ANY thing to try and make the Dems look like they want to filabuster everything and everyone ....

[JRob]

106. thank you, thank you, thank you!

Stupidity, complacency, complicity etc. I'm sure it applies to most all the players in this rat-fuck.

[AuntiBush]

100. As in "Gonzales," maybe...

And since when did any Judge "lean solidly to the right?"

Oh. It's OK for the Rethugs to do their little fillibusters when Conyers and other Dem rep's "tried" to talk about the "DSM" from the Conference, to on the House floor last Tuesday and Thursday. That's OK!

I'm more frustrated with Repuk voters filled with so much hypocracy and hatred for their fellow Americans they don't want to see their forest amid their own selfish, dim-witted trees!

[spanone]

102. The Democrats Need to Define "extaordinary circumstances"

Before the thugs get the jump on them. They are ready to pounce.

[The Stranger]

115. Too late. They have already effectively pounced.

This was orchestrated days ago. Now they need to counterpunch.

[muchacho]

109. Argh!!!!

you don't play footsies with a bear.

Screw the compromise, it's time for a goddamn showdown and test of wills.

[mirrera]

110. We were all screaming about this when it happened,

and we got put down by the "yeah!" crowd. We were told the compromise was all for this fight.

This is what I wrote when someone asked what we should have done, and I still feel this way:

What we could have done differently?

Voted as a block to deny the electors from Ohio
Voted as a block to deny Gonzales, Rice, etc.
Voted as a block to deny the appropriations bill that included drilling in ANWR
Voted as a block to deny the Bankruptcy Bill
Asked about the war games on 911 until we got an answer.
Demanded impeachment for the Downing St. Memo

You get the picture...

NOW before I hear "We are the Minority" "We would loose", "Save our battles", "Frame the issue"....I have to say again...game over!
These guys are playing for keeps. Last man standing on the last Oil well. We are going to loose everything one painful increment at a time because they are ALL playing politics, as usual, including some of us. People are dying it is time to speak for history...real truth to power like Galloway did. We are now talking to the planet not just to the Senate. We need to unite globally not politically. As I said in an earlier thread when you come from a place of truth, conscience and integrity you attract better friends.
We should have called their bluff. If they were willing to cheat on the rules the game was forfeit anyway. There were a MULTITUDE of options and room for revolution if they did that. We will never know now, and we saved them.

I agree with Skinner that the article is a fully spun GOP story, but hey that is the way they play. Don't we know that yet? We need to FORCE the nuclear option and then the Dems walk...period. We are all becoming war criminals because of this regime.


http://NoBullshiRt.com

[The Stranger]

114. Come on, people. That is an EASY one.

How hard is it to find problems of "personal ethics" or "character"?

Get your people to start digging right now.

[mmonk]

125. If the nominee is a rightwing

Federalist Society radical and the Dems don't filibuster, I am guaranteed to leave the party. I will fight no more forever (under a dem banner).

[FreeStateDemocrat]

126. You are a democrat of good moral character unlike some who are elected

[Voltaire99]

127. Heh. Please try to be less shocked...

...when the Democrats seem to collapse, as so often they do, before the Republicans. Shock is bad for your heart, and judging from the hyperventilating here some are needlessly endangering their health.

This recent essay by Steve Perry should help remove a few blinders:
http://citypages.com/databank/26/1281/article13433.asp

Bottom line: the party's leadership is in no way interested in brutal fights with Bushism that might cost Democrats either corporate contributions or votes.

[MojoXN]

129. If you make a deal with the Devil...

You're going to get burned. I felt this way months ago, when the so-called "compromise" was first announced. Y'know, the "compromise" whereby the Republicans got EVERYTHING that they wanted without having to give anything up, and the Democrats got nothing, and also effectively relinquished the filibuster. At this point, I'd be surprised if Bush tried to ram Gonzalez through, seeing as how he now has free reign to appoint someone MUCH more extreme than ol' Alberto. Goodbye 2000, hell-o 1925!

MojoXN

[Hardknock]

130. The so-called "deal"

Fuck the repugs. Go back on the deal. They'd do it to us in a second.