Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Jesse Jackson Jr. on the filibuster deal

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-24-05 05:36 PM
Original message
Jesse Jackson Jr. on the filibuster deal
Edited on Tue May-24-05 05:36 PM by WilliamPitt
Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., today said, "Some will argue that the Senate deal was a win-win-win for the Senate, Democrats and Republicans. I argue that it was essentially a bad deal, but I admit that it contained a mixed bag of pluses and minuses.

"It was a defeat for Senator Bill Frist and those Republicans who wanted to violate Senate rules and Senate tradition. It was a defeat for those conservatives who are committed to the principle of `all or nothing,' like the extremist, the Rev. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who called the deal `a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans.' It was a defeat for those of us who are opposed to putting three right-wing extremist nominees - Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor and Priscilla R. Owen - on a federal bench for lifetime appointments. Confirming them will mean taking a dramatic step backwards for civil society and the rule of law.

"But it was a victory in that all members of the group of fourteen compromisers, the so-called moderates, rejected Sen. Frist's central argument - that judicial filibusters are unconstitutional. The compromise acknowledges the right of senators to filibuster judicial nominees - at least in `extraordinary circumstances.'

"The deal is confusing if you listen to how some conservative Senators interpreted what the agreement actually says. Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) said, `if an individual senator believes in the future that a filibuster is taking place under something that's not extraordinary circumstances, we of course reserve the right to do what we could have done tomorrow, which is to cast a yes vote for the constitutional option.' But that's not what the agreement says. Section IIB says: `In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress.' Section IIA makes clear that senators maintain their commitment to the agreement as long as they only filibuster in `extraordinary circumstances,' a determination to be based on 'their own discretion and judgment.'

So Sen. DeWine can't go nuclear simply because he decides the filibuster is being used in something other than `extraordinary circumstances.' Rather, based on the language of the agreement, the deal would only dissolve if senators filibuster without making a good faith determination - based on their `own discretion and judgment,' not DeWine's discretion and judgment - that there were extraordinary circumstances," concluded Jackson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
stellanoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-24-05 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. yup. . . pros and cons to this deal
Yet IMHO, we're living constantly under relentlessly "extraordinary circumstances" these days.

So in my humble book, it's a carte blanche. Still I know they're always up to something else that flies under the radar of those who ascribe to fair play, to undermine our democracy even further.

Ughhhhh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Itsthetruth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-24-05 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Dup
Edited on Tue May-24-05 06:10 PM by Itsthetruth
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Itsthetruth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-24-05 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. It Is Indeed A "Bad Deal" Anyway You Look At It
"I argue that it was essentially a bad deal" I can't disagree with Rep. Jackson on that. As Senator Feingold pointed out this afternoon that "a compromise at the point of a gun is not a compromise". Especially if the gun might not have any bullets! That would be called a surrender.

The bottom line is that ALL of the judicial nominations that Bush presents to the Senate will be passed .... and the Republicans won't need to use the "nuclear option" to accomplish that goal.

It doesn't get any sweeter than that .... for the Bush government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-24-05 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
2. A mixed bag indeed, but
it was certainly the best deal that we could get considering the alternatives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
carnie_sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-24-05 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
4. I think on the whole
any defeat for Frist and Dobson is a good thing. I'm waiting to see what Barbara Boxer has to say about it before making up my mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-24-05 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Boxer statement on the deal
May 23, 2005

I am very pleased that senators from both sides of the aisle have walked the Senate back from the brink and preserved the great tradition of the United States Senate. This is a victory for the American people. It is a defeat for the abuse of power known as the nuclear option.

I will continue to defend the independence of the judiciary by doing all I can to ensure that we confirm mainstream judicial nominees who will protect the rights and freedoms of the American people.

link: http://boxer.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=238124
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
carnie_sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-24-05 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Thank you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Nov 27th 2014, 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC