Democrats discuss "deal" on judges

[quaoar]

This is just unbelievable.

The Associated Press has just moved this update.

One of the deals being worked on would have the Senate confirming Owen, California judge Janice Rogers Brown and former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, with Idaho lawyer William Myers’s nomination scuttled. As part of that deal, two Michigan nominees, David McKeague and Richard Griffin, would be confirmed, while a third nominee — Henry Saad — would be jettisoned.

A fourth Michigan judge, Susan Neilson, also would be confirmed. She has not been filibustered by Democrats in the past.

Senators are still negotiating that part of the deal and it is subject to change, aides said.

Under the latest Republican-crafted proposal, both sides would have to operate on “good faith.” Republicans would be bound not to ban judicial filibusters only if Democrats forswear judicial filibusters except for extraordinary situations, aides said.

[tritsofme]

1. Is there anything new about this deal?

This sounds very similar to what has been floating around the past few days.

[BattyDem]

2. The deal is to confirm the three worst???

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

[democracyindanger]

3. A link would help

I saw this earlier--the group of 8 or so senators from both sides doesn't include any of the leadership.

[quaoar]

8. The senators involved are

Republicans Lindsey Graham of SC, Mike DeWine of Ohio, John Warner of Va., John McCain of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska

Democrats Ken Salazar of Colorado, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

[democracyindanger]

9. Thanks. This shows that

if anything, it's some senators trying to prove their 'moderate' cred.

I don't doubt your concern--I just don't think you should be that worried.

[quaoar]

11. It only takes five Democratic moderate senators to cut a deal

They make their deal and then vote for cloture.

Poof. No need for the nuclear option.

But it sounds like the Republicans are determined to set the whole place on fire. This is a sweet deal for the Republicans. The fact that Frist won't accept it shows how much he has sold his soul to James Dobson and Pat Robertson.

[Gloria]

13. I knew Lieberman would have to be involved.....

eom

[zann725]

18. AND Obama. They gave a little press conference yesterday on CSPAN...

...saying how if they could just get the Republicans to compromise on 10 "acceptable" CONSERVATIVE judges, they'd have a compromise?!!!

Since when do ALL the judges HAVE to be of one Party in a Democracy?

I know Lieberman makes most of us sick, but Obama's cautiousness on most everything is unsettling.

[renaissanceguy]

29. Obama's part of the compromise?!

What a fucking joke he's turning out to be. So much for his campaign as a reformer and an outsider.

[Mass]

31. Dont think so

The article does not give names. The previous one listed Lieberman, Nelson, and Salazar on the Democratic side, and McCain, Graham, Snowe, and Warner on the Republican side.

No Obama in there.

[ProudDad]

14. SCUM SCUM

Those dems are scum!!!!!

Damn them -- Salazar is a BIG dissappointment, Nelson, Landrieu and Lieberman ARE repukes -- I don't know about Pryor but he's still scum.

THEY CAN'T BACK DOWN ON THIS!!!!

[CWebster]

22. The Democrats most willing to

fold every time.

[quaoar]

12. Here's a link

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ats-ap_top10may18,1,163537.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

[cyberpj]

4. Doesn't sound like we're getting much for letting them have their top 3

so much talk about those particular 3 today and now we're just going to bend over?

[Nite Owl]

5. Frist has said that

they would accept no deals. Maybe this is to let the 'moderates' on both sides save face and say they tried. I saw Ben Nelson on Bloomberg News earlier today and he seems to be the one leading this on the dem side (surprise!). Warner and McCain and some others he wouldn't even name.

[quaoar]

6. This may actually work in our favor

Frist is so hard-core on this that he won't even accept five of the seven. This has got to shock the moderates into seeing the true colors of the people they still think they can do business with.

[katsy]

10. I agree re: Frist.

And I don't know about the moderates, but I hope you're right.

IMO: In order for this to work in our favor, the Dems must stand together and stop trying to broker stupid deals like this.

The gop will be able to paint Dem capitulation on the 3 or 4 most radical nominations as weakness, flip-flops and political games by losers on the extreme left.

In the public's narrow view... IF you object to a judicial nominee because they are extremists (as the Dems have been TELLING THE PUBLIC for weeks) why would you turn around and betray your own convictions? Why would the Dems vote to confirm a judge who sides with rapists? Why would the Dems vote to confirm a judge who favors a corporation over victims? Why would the Dems vote to confirm a judge who would invoke a generational war within families about Social Security?

The Dems should be screaming these accusations about these judges from the rooftops and go down in flames if it means protecting the public from these <<monsters>>... that should be the Dem frame.

Lose the filibuster for now. Show the American people the Dems are not about politics as usual... nor do they "flip-flop". Then slow or stop all corporate related senate business while attending to the people's business (social/veterans legislation).

At some point, the Dems must make good on their convictions at all costs. The balance of power will swing at some point. But not if voters view the Dems as weak.

[beaconess]

7. Don't panic or jump to conclusions . . .

The excerpt says nothing about Dems agreeing to or even talking about this "deal." It just says that it is being "worked on" and that it's a "Republican-crafted proposal."

Frankly, I can't see the Dems agreeing to let Owen, Brown and Pryor through since they are the worst of the worst and the primary reasons for this filibuster. This sounds to me like either Republican propaganda or a trial balloon floated by Dems to call Frist (who would never agree to any deal that doesn't result in ALL judges being confirmed) out.

[ProudDad]

15. The primary reason for the Dems

to fight back is the Supreme Court...

That's what this is REALLY about. The pukes want 3 more puke-right-wingers on the court before '08 to completely dismantle every bit of progressive social progress in the last century.

Get ready for the 6 1/2 day - 12 hours a day week. Oh, I forgot, for many americans, that's what it takes to survive...

[xxqqqzme]

16. sweet jeebus...what a load of

crap - Myers isn't even a JUDGE! Hey how about we take the worse of the nominees, put them on the bench and U neo-cons promise 2 play fair?

Oh yea - that's gonna work. Taking odds on how long B4 the rethugs toss that 'good faith'? DFD (dumbf*ckingdinos)

[LittleClarkie]

17. The freeper reaction to this is quite funny

There shouting for Frist to hold the line. They will vote out any Repub who votes against the filibuster, even if it means installing a Dem.

Oooh, circular firing squad gooood.

[WilliamPitt]

19. If it is a deal to save the filibuster and keep the Senate from crashing

It might be worth it.

Think to the next step: SCOTUS nominations next year. We need the filibuster.

We can grind the Senate to a halt, buit sooner or later that will have to stop.

Save the filibuster for the SCOTUS fight.

Think to the next step.

[tavalon]

21. You're completely right

Having said that, the thing I hate the most about these times is how I've had to learn pragmatism. I suppose it's a worthwhile skill but to this starry eyed idealist, it feels filthy and still makes me a bit sick to my stomach. I wish just once that I could draw a line in the sand and say, "No further, fuckers!".

[bunkerbuster1]

25. Ok, so what's to stop Nookyouler Optionin' when the next SCOTUS nominee

comes down the pike? What, pray tell, would keep these lying treasonous fucks from reversing themselves when it's convenient?

I call bullshit. I don't trust Frist farther than my cat can throw him.

[quaoar]

26. But how does this save the filibuster?

Think to the next step: SCOTUS nominations next year. We need the filibuster.


If we make a deal now, the filibuster will have been gutted and will be tactically useless. They will have proven that they can either kill it at any time or make us back down. And the next time if we try to rally public opinion to save the sacred filibuster, we will appear craven as well as foolish.

[renaissanceguy]

30. And what makes you think

they won't pull the "Nukular" card when it comes to SCOTUS nominees? They keep changing all the rules, anyway, whenever they don't get their way.

[BillZBubb]

34. Jeebus Freekin Christ! NOOOOO!

Quit playing political "judo" for once. Nothing saves the filibuster if the Repug majority wants it scuttled. They'll just remove it at Supreme Court time if not now.

We are dealing with immoral, unthinking thugs. They will stop at nothing to take total control. Therefore, we MUST resist them at every turn. Every deal made (actually every cave in) where they come out ahead weakens us.

Do we believe these Bush nominess are unfit for lifetime appointments or not? If we do, then fight like hell with everything at our disposal. To do otherwise is both strategically a disaster and politically craven. And the public will see it that way.

Democrats need to fight for something for a change instead of rolling over at the first sign of trouble.

[zann725]

20. Frist & Co. are NOT people you enter "good faith" agreements with.

Enough compromises! It's time for Dems to 'draw a line in the sand.'

[Vickers]

38. Exactly! This reeks of the Chamberlain-Hitler agreement

And we all know how THAT turned out. :eyes:

[Guaranteed]

23. If it takes 67 votes to change the rules, which is what I heard,

why in the hell are we even making a deal?

[beaconess]

24. Normally it takes 67 votes, but the Republicans are going to break

the rules and push through this rule change on a simple majority vote.

[quaoar]

27. The repubs have to break the rules

They will have to ignore the Senate parliamentarian and ask for a ruling from the chair (Cheney). Cheney will rule that the filibuster rule is out of order.

Basically, Cheney will issue a rule from the chair that they can do whatever the fuck they want to.

[rhett o rick]

28. NO DEAL NO DEAL A deal will only slightly slow the movement into

a total plutocratic/fascist government. The Demo's have to draw a line in the sand and fight it out. The first step to get a extremest judge onto the Supreme Court is to get them appointed as a federal judge. If you think for a second that once these current nominees are appointed then the Repub's will let the Demo's filibuster to keep them out of the SC? No way. The Repub's will dump this "Deal" as soon as they need to. A deal requires trust. DON'T TRUST THE BASTARDS.

[Mass]

32. This article is totally misleading.

A handful of centrists are discussing a deal. Names given yesterday on the Democratic side included Salazar, Nelson, and Lieberman.

There is not anything surprising in these names. I just hope they fail.

Anyway. Frist wants the filibuster to disappear before the next Supreme Court Nomination that is supposed to be soon. He is NOT interested in a deal.

[quaoar]

33. You are correct that Frist doesn't want a deal

But if he did, he'd only need five Dems to invoke cloture.

[sidwill]

35. NO DEAL..

Fuck any deal. Either block those jerkoff judges or force the Repukes to steamroll them through. Use it against them in the next 10 elections: "Republican thugs rewrite Senate rules to push extremist activist Judges".

The Dems need to make a principled stand here and not let the Republicans undo a system that has worked for over 150 years.

[salin]

39. Agreed, and this is inevitable... but

I think the dem "attempts at compromise" are staging. They know it is inevitable - and that the senate is going to become stopped as a result.

Preemptive staging leaves the public impression that it really is the republicans shutting things down. Important. They were able to leave the lasting impression that it was Daschle who was the obstructionist.

But right now - because the news scrutiny is so heightened and fevered at the moment - a lot of coverage is going to the dem "attempts" at preventing this showdown. The current impression is that it is FRIST who is unreasonable. It is FRIST who is causing this showdown.

Since it is inevitable - a little good spin... prompted by the media for once (and ONLY because of the current moment in the news cycle on this particular issue)... good in the long run.

It is important that recent abuses of power by the DC radical GOP is starting to leave an overall distaste in the public's mouth. Every brick in that wall of public perception... helps set the stage for the public's desire for a deluge of change in midterm elections as happened in 1974, and 1994.

Ironically it is the GOP's arrogance at this moment - and their buying into the media hype of "values voters" (without reading the fine print on ANY of those polls which indicated that there was a great differentiation of what voters meant by "values"... thus they were lumping multiple groups together thinking it was a singular large group to be pandered to... ) - that is leading them to KEEP making these blunders. Frist and DeLay are the majority leaders who keep giving, and giving - sorta like the Energizer Bunny. Right now they are taking themselves down in the public eye.

In more than 20 years of watching DC Politics closely, I can not remember so much arrogance leading to so many missteps (eg things that not only do not sit well with the public, but that instead rankle the public), in such quick succession. They seem not to be able to help themselves.

Recent poll says that the public now trusts DEMS more to run congress than republicans. That is HUGE.

The death by one-thousand cuts seems to be in progress... they just don't seem to be able to stop themselves from inflicting most of those cuts.

[salin]

36. I thought Reid's attempts to negotiate with Frist, AND I think these talks

are good strategy for democrats. Here is why...

There was a backlash against the House REpublicans over the budget and 'govt shutdown'. Because THEY were seen as doing this willfully - and with no efforts to negotiate. (Of course the public wasn't paying attention when we learned that Newt did all of this because he felt slighted on a flight with Clinton... that would have added to the backlash.)

These very well publicized attempts by democrats to "prevent senate shut down" - are important to how the public views the eventual shut-down as it is clear that Frist and co will not back down. The public doesn't pay as close attention as we do - they go on "impressions" of brief news items.

Where the attribute the problem/source - is going to play out later - and IF it is perceived to be one more abuse of power play by congressional repubs - and the public now does view a number of recent GOP antics in this light - the overall public perception of GOP out of control in congress... gives us a very good springboard (eg receptive public) for a large enough turnaround in the 2006 elections to take over at least one of the houses of Congress.

We can not win these battles in the senate. They have too large of a majority. We might get some tactle wins. But to really win - we have to turn over the senate - and to do that - we need public perception to view the Frist republicans as the obstructionists. And they seem to be doing a pretty good job themselves of creating this role.

Thus, tactically - I think this is pretty good strategy. I wouldn't be surprised if the four moderate dems have tacit leadership approval for these discussions - esp knowing that lots of press is focusing on it. Leads to an answer to the question: Just WHO is being obstructionist? Just WHO is unwilling to compromise? ...

Just offering a counter read to the situation.

[GreenArrow]

37. NO fucking deals!

Jesus, can you fucking people take a stand on SOMETHING?

[KansDem]

40. I agree, dealing with the devil(s)

will only get us all in Hell...

[johnnyrocket]

41. Problem is, Frist has the votes to ban the filibuster....

in a way, they have the Dems over a barrel.

It's what the voting public brought upon us all. Truly a disaster, these idiots who voted for Republicans.

[GreenArrow]

42. maybe he has the votes.

Let's assume he does. Then the Pubs get their judges, even if the Dems stand up and fight.

If they make a deal, the Pubs are still going to get their most egregious judges, and the Democrats are, in effect, going to lose the ability to fillibuster. Yeah, it's supposed to still be available, in "extreme circustances" whatever that means. What it means is that the Pubs will vote the fillbuster down at a later date if the Dems try to use it. They'll get their cake and eat it too.

Might as well go down fighting. The public agrees with the Democrats on this issue. Even if all the Democrats vote together on this, success is going to depend on principled Republicans voting against the party line, a dicey prospect at best.

They can take their deals and shove 'em up their asses...with a red hot poker.

[yellowcanine]

43. Ouch! Was the "red hot poker" really necessary?

[GreenArrow]

44. damn straight, it was!

This ain't no quilting bee.