Lets see, hmmm freepers pissed, DUers pissed. . .deal reached hmmmmmm

[wndycty]

Guys its too early to know whether or not this deal which was announced over an hour ago is good for us or good for them or even better yet good for the country.

I just hope those who are pissed know and understand the deal that was reached (I don't yet), and are not just being pissed because we did not get to filibuster. Lets not lose site of the big picture.

[xray s]

1. I look at it this way

Seven Republicans just gave Bush a big old thumb in the eye.

They just might follow through and vote DOWN one or two of these losers.

Now that would be a great way to win, eh?

[mzmolly]

2. This is the main reason I see it as a victory.

The agreement said future nominees to the appeals court and Supreme Court should "only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances," with each Democrat senator holding the discretion to decide when those conditions had been met.

"In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement," Republicans said they would oppose any attempt to make changes in the application of filibuster rules.

Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., swiftly noted he had not been a party to the deal, which fell short of his stated goal of winning yes-or-no votes on each of Bush's nominees. "It has some good news and it has some disappointing news and it will require careful monitoring," he said,

Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada seemed more receptive — although he hastened to say he remains opposed to some of the nominees who will now likely take seats on federal appeals courts.

We could have easilly lost it ALL here, we retained the right to filibuster and this may have lasting impact on the US Supreme Court.

[BR_Parkway]

3. But it also took off nuclear option - according to the text of the memo

of the deal:



B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

[mzmolly]

13. Isn't a filibuster protection against the extreme regardless?

:shrug:

WE could have lost it all, very easilly here.

[in_cog_ni_to]

38. they "commit" to oppose the rules changes?

and you believe that statement? Repukes are back-stabbin' LIARS. Not for one minute do I trust a word they say. Also....it specifically says the 109th Congress. You know what that means? The next Congress can do whatever the hell they want and since they OWN the evoting machines, I don't expect to see the Dems in a Majority in the 110th Congress.

[susanna]

45. Thank you.

That's exactly what I see. :-(

[CatholicEdHead]

4. Maybe

but wouldn't you think the same "up-down vote" talking points/excuses will be drug out and the same fight fought when it comes time to replace members of the Supreme Court?

[mzmolly]

7. No, I think this whole deal eliminated that possibility?

I'm no expert in constitutional law, but that's how I read it?

[Just Me]

8. ZACTLY!!! wtf is wrong with people? Don't they GET IT?!?!

Damn! I've been dancin' dirty all over the house!!

WE WON!!!

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

The right-wing is f-u-c-k-e-d!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[mzmolly]

19. Some are looking at the small picture rather then what might have happened

to the entire nation as a possibility. I don't think people realize that they needed only 51 votes to strip us of the right to filibuster? The USSC was at stake here.

[ldf]

37. and some of us ARE looking at the big picture.

we aren't pissed because we didn't get a chance to filibuster, we're pissed because, yet once again, we "compromised".

you ALWAYS give up something when we compromise.

at what point are we going to quit? when there is absolutely nothing else left to lose?

i think this is all a charade. the republicans are going to trot it right back out.

after all, THEY make the rules now. what they said three minutes ago is irrelevant.

but out democratic leaders are to busy being "bipartisan" when the LAST thing the republicans are is "bipartisan".

sorry, for my depressing take on it. i just can't seem to see a silver lining.

[mzmolly]

41. When they had the potential to overturn the right to a filibuster with

just 51 votes, we had no choice but to compromise. The Federal Courts and the Supreme Court were at stake. The RW was salivating with visions of sugar plums and overturning Roe v Wade on this deal.

"Politics is the art of compromise" but let me be clear, calling this a compromise is just smoke and mirrors, it is a way for the R's to try and save face, WE WON HERE! And, we were really in SERIOUS danger of losing it all.

[meti57b]

25. So then that means ....

they get all or most of their nominees this time with no filibuster but in the future, we can filibuster?

[mzmolly]

28. No, it means we let a few slide at the state level, at the risk of losing

it all forever. It also means we retain the right to shape the Supreme Court.

[WilliamPitt]

5. Freepers and DUers pissed

means the extremists at both ends of the spectrum, who demand battles to the death in all things, did not get what they wanted.

I take that as a good thing.

Sorry about that.

[wndycty]

6. Will I agree with you

:kick:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. Well, three extremists are happy, anyway.

And their well-connected friends, too.

[Patchuli]

24. They can still be voted down

Considering the wondrous possibility!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

29. Try considering the implicit nature of the deal.

They're in.

I hope I'm wrong.

[MichiganVote]

16. Ain't that truth. I'm with you.

[Jose Diablo]

21. Hmmmm, extremists at both ends?

I will keep this comment in mind.

Just how do you define extremist? Do you think a progressive is extremist, or just those progressives that lack decorum and civility?

Is compromise always the best way? Or are there some things that compromise cannot be allowed? When is a 'little' fascism OK? How much liberty will you give-up, for security?

Isn't this kinda like fucking for chastity, or war for peace? You confuse me Pitt.

[WilliamPitt]

27. Keep it in mind

We are in the minority. There isn't a thing we can do about it until 2006. We are fighting fully defensive battles here, and we won this one. We kept the right to filibuster, and kept the right to determine the terms under which it will be used.

They didn't have to blink. They could have twisted arms, threatened punishment of any Senators that break ranks, they could have forced this fight, and they would have won in the long run. The filibuster would be gone, and the road to full-spectrum extremism would have been wide open.

I'm not surprised by the holier-than-thou posturing you've flung against the wall here. I hope it feels good. I hope questioning my credentials feels good. I'll tell you one thing, though: Dying nobly is still dying. You want to go down to defeat with guns a-blazing instead of win a defensive fight with a compromise? Please do it with someone else's country.

[Jose Diablo]

44. Since you brought it up

This holier-than-thou posturing can be seen with your post. Guns a-blazing?

Do you think this country is only yours to compromise?

If anybody is taking a "holier-than-thou" attitude it is you.

Back to the original post, do you really look down "on the extremists" at both ends?

I see nothing in your post to indicate what you consider an extremist. Is that someone that on some things will not compromise? Is that what you mean by extremist?

Isn't this the attitude that has got us where we are today? Do you see any compromise whatsoever in Bu$h? How about Cheney? Fact is, I haven't seen any 'compromise' whatsoever by the republican Senators. I see talk. But as they say, talk is cheap, much like your response to the question, how far will you compromise this country that you are so fond of calling your own, and not mine.

All I see is a slide to fascism that is enabled by those that compromise.

It is not me that is destroying this country. It is those that compromise with those that see compromise as weakness.

[tavalon]

30. Ouch

We're the left extremists, huh? I've been quietly suspicioning that for a while now. Geez, how did I get from where I was at 18 to this?

[wndycty]

9. I'm waiting for people to call Byrd a sellout. . .

. . .I predict it will happen by 10:00 PM Central

[madrchsod]

14. byrd is to old to sell out

but maybe some people will....

[tavalon]

31. ?

[knight_of_the_star]

10. Remember

A good compromise leaves no one happy.

[madrchsod]

11. stalemate one battle

to win a more important battle later in the war. so far the republicans are stalemated and will have to hold their line or withdraw..the real war for the elections of 2006 has started tonight.

[Generator]

12. Everybody has an opinion and the certainty of some is puzzling

And after reading most of these threads I can only rest back on a cliche. (I find them mighty helpful in these dark days)

Time will tell.

And for all those "we won" folks-wez a long way from winnin' anything.

Time will tell.

The next fight is tomorrow, set your clocks.

[Lexingtonian]

17. 16 hours can be a long time

I wouldn't be surprised if the 'deal' falls apart tomorrow morning.

Personally, I see it as a gambit rather than a solution to the problem. This is a play for time in turn for a few nominees- Owen and Pryor won't make things much worse on the dismal 5th and 11th Circuits, but letting them put Brown on the 3rd bothers me.

[Catherine Vincent]

40. LIEbermann....

I haven't seen that one used since Sore Losermann.

[dicknbush]

18. The Dems punked out!

Plain and simple. They didn't want to take the heat from thr RIGHT WINGED PR MACHINE if they had to go thru this and shut the senate down. the Dems are a bunch of PUSSIES! Especially that hack LIEberman!
And the real story is not the judicial thing the reason this didn't happen is because the business interests couldn't afford to have the senate shut down the money trough and that is what would have happend. If the filibuster was removed form the Senate as regrads judicial appointments the Dems base would have gone ballistic and the dems would have had no choice but to make the Senate procedures move along at a smails pace and the Money machine on K-Street couldn't stand it not getting their daily fix of taxpayer money!

[mzmolly]

20. Nice user name. "Me thinks thou doth protest too much"

;) :hi:

[cry baby]

22. I'm happy about the deal.

[kevinmc]

23. Here is How I See It

Reid didn't win anything and Frist lost his Freeper/Fundie Base.

[sendero]

26. Not if...

... the whole battle starts anew when the next SC appointment comes along, which I predict it will.

For the life of me, I don't understand just what we've "won" here.

[kevinmc]

32. Dobson and the Just Us Crowd

have been demanding Frist pull the Trigger, he failed. It shows he doesn't have his Party in control and the Fundies were frothing at the mouth over this getting done now. It weakens his position. Granted we will probably see it tried again, but the Freepers and Fundies are going to have that doubt Frist can get it done. I don't think they will be able to wind up all those Freepers/Fundies again if that doubt is there. Then again I could be completely wrong :-)

[mzmolly]

36. Yep, now ... insert a Constitution Candidate in 2008, and we might just

divide their base over this issue? :evilgrin:

[mzmolly]

33. This agreement prevents that from being an issue?

Which is why it was a win for us.

Nominally, the issue at hand was Bush's selection of Owen, a member of the Texas Supreme Court, to a seat on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

In fact, as the rhetoric suggested, the stakes were far broader, with Republicans maneuvering to strip Democrats of their right to filibuster and thus block current and future nominees to the appeals court and Supreme Court.

There currently is no vacancy on the high court, although one or more is widely expected in Bush's term. Chief Justice William Rehnquist's coincidental presence in the Capitol during the day was a reminder of that. At age 80 and battling thyroid cancer, he entered the building in a wheelchair on his way to the doctor's office.

Under a complicated situation in effect on the Senate floor, an agreement among six senators of each party was sufficient to avert the showdown. Six Democrats agreeing not to filibuster assured judicial nominees of a yes-or-no vote. Six Republicans signing the accord meant Frist and other GOP leaders would not have the votes to strip Democrats of their ability to filibuster.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/filibuster_fight

[tavalon]

34. Why do you think Frist is disavowing knowledge

of this compromise? It's saber rattling purely for the benefit of his precious wingnuts. I'm not saying it will save his sorry ass. Goodness knows, I hope it doesn't.

But hey, this ain't politics, it's theater.

[Cleita]

35. I guess when the right and left compromise, no one is happy.n/t

[KittyWampus]

39. Truer Words Were Never Spoken. It's The Essence Of Compromise

[Blue_Roses]

43. your comment speaks volumes

as to why we can't get a damn thing done in this country.

[warrens]

42. My preferred option was nuclear winter, shut down the Senate til 08

But this doesn't appear to be too bad, mainly because the GOP moderates suddenly grew a spine. And the cuckobananas wingnuts are going to take it out on Frist, who PROMISED them total victory. One thing that occurs to me, and I might be a wild-eyed optimist, is that this will free the 12 moderates to vote their conscience, and it is pretty tough for a sane person to vote for a judge who says that all government should be destroyed. Or another who is the most activist judge in the country.

So there may be good coming out of this. I was hoping that either the nuke option would lose, or the Dems would shut down the Senate and go home.

[wndycty]

46. Kick

:kick: