Daily Kos Analysis Of The Filibuster Compromise

[Jon8503]

by kos
Tue May 24th, 2005 at 08:29:30 PDT

There are those who think any compromise is a sign of weakness, and there's little that can be said to change their mind.

But here are the plain, unspun facts:

# Democrats hold 44 seats in the 100 seat Senate. One independent sides with the Democrats, giving Dems a 10-seat deficit.

# Reid had 49 votes. He needed 51 to defeat Frist's nuclear option.

# Reid needed at least two of four undecided Republicans.

# Had Reid come up short, the filibuster would be dead in judicial matters.

# If the filibuster was dead, Bush would've been able to put anyone on the Supreme Court. Anyone.

# Radical Christian Rightist James Dobson is demanding the right to choose the next Supreme Court nominee.

# Dobson's biggest enemy is the filibuster. Hence, he forced Frist to engage in the nuclear option.

# Because of the deal, Dobson can't choose the next Supreme Court justice. Bush's choice, if too extreme, faces the prospect of a filibuster.

In order to save face, Republicans have gotten up or down votes on most of the handful of judges who are currently being filibustered. It's a price, but a relatively small one to pay to protect the filibuster during the next Supreme Court battle.

Given that we have a 10-seat deficit in the Senate, that's no small feat.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/24/112930/966

[coloradodem2005]

1. Very Insightful.

[Jon8503]

2. Sorry, got it corrected.

[Eloriel]

3. Nevermind -- you fixed it.

But did you include a link? If not, you should.

[Jon8503]

5. Here is your link. Getting tough to make a post.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/24/112930/966

[TomClash]

4. A big fly in the ointment

Why does Frist only need 50 votes to defeat a filibuster?

It takes 60 votes to invoke cloture and 67 votes to invoke cloture to defeat a filibuster to amend the Seante Rules.

I don't get it.

[quaoar]

7. Long story

But basically he would rule the filibuster out of order and ask for a ruling from the chair (Cheney).

[housewolf]

12. Frist's intent was to over-ride the rule

so that it would only take a majority of 51 to invoke cloture for judicial nominees, thus effectively killing the filibuster on judicial nominees.

That procedure is what is known as the "nuclear option".

[TomClash]

21. I know that

And I know Frist would ask Cheney to rule the Point of Order out of Order.

No Senate rule provides for rule changes that way. Nor is that how cloture works. They would have to ignore the Parliamentarian's advice.

[in_cog_ni_to]

23. That was their intent.

A Frist ? or repuke Senate? staffer said that the Parliamentarian was not an elected official and therefore was not a part of their fight. They knew they were breaking the Senate rules. They knew the Parliamentarian would object and basically said, "We don't give a shit, we are the almighty republican party. Rules don't apply to us."

[understandinglife]

6. Pathetic.

While some folk are hugging the 'filibuster tree' (which was lethally infected with the virulent 'extraordinary circumstances' virus on May 23 2005) they have failed to notice that the forest (our Constitutional republic) has been clear-cut.

The logging started in earnest on Saturday, Dec 9 2000, and has not abated for a second, since.

Everyone can keep hugging that last, lethally infected tree.

Or, you can climb the very steep hill to the RAP tent, see the decimated forest for what it is, and, finally, begin all the legal and peaceful actions required to remove the dictator Bu$h and his neoconster vermin from the land and beginning restoring the forest.

Any doubt any person could have about Bu$h being a dictator should have been readily dashed by his 'catapult propaganda' and 'don't listen to your constituent' comments -- all made in the 24 hours after that remaining tree was lethally infected.

Some suggestions:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3723336&mesg_id=3723336

Peace.


It has happened, Mr Lucas


www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[quaoar]

8. Sorry, but I disagree

The filibuster is dead for all practical purposes.
Bush will still put whoever he wants on the court. I predict he will nominate Scalia to move up to chief justice to replace Rehnquist. But it would not surprise me if he nominated someone who has already been through the Senate confirmation process -- like Alberto Gonzales

[ultraist]

13. They will pull the same BS for the SCOTUS nomination

They will argue over what "extraordinary circumstance" is, then they will say the Dems are violating the Deal, thus the deal is off, and threaten the nuke option again. Furthermore, Frist is not a signatory, therefore he has not agreed to drop the nuke option. He's already stated, he may use it again.

FOUR Republicans were possible votes and we needed only two of those. sheesh.

[sendero]

9. This is beyond ridiculous....

... "Bush's choice, if too extreme, faces the prospect of a filibuster"

That very idea is a laugh riot. Who decides "too extreme"? The gang of 14?

Well guess what, anyone who thinks none of the gang will cave given enough pressure is living in la la land.

This "compromise" merely bought us some time. Maybe that time can be put to good use, maybe not. But anyone claiming the filibuster is there for us to use is a freaking deludinoid. It is there if many tenuous threads stay in place. I wouldn't bet my lunch on it being there, much less my life.

[ultraist]

10. Reid should have taken a risk to prevent a major swing to the right

He should have let it go to a vote! I bet at least two of the FOUR Republicans would have voted with us. Frist would have looked like a LOOSER and a fool and we would NOT have at least three radical judges AND a new limitation on filibustering judicial nominees ("extraordinary circumstance").

The Republicans pander to their far right, but the Democrats take their far left for granted. They assume that NO MATTER WHAT we will continue to vote Democrat. Regardless of how fucking moderate they go, they think they can count on our votes.

Meanwhile, the Republicans continue to come out with these far right extremist proposals and IF they have to compromise a bit, it's still a win for them. Their far right, blames the Democrats, not their own party for not totally getting what they want. Why aren't Dems using the same strategy? This Repuke lite BS is NOT WORKING.

[housewolf]

15. Two of the 4 undecides were not going to vote with us.

Reid had 49 votes, Frist had 51. We would have lost.

By the time of the compromise, there weren't 4 undecideds. There were a few that hadn't announced how they would vote but have since. Frist had the votes to win, we didn't.

[Selatius]

11. Frist will try to go nuclear again

All this compromise did was delay a constitutional confrontation. It will not be over District Court judges. It will be over Supreme Court justices instead. At least, these are my worst fears.

[AirAmFan]

14. Great find, Jon. The 'gamblers' here who wanted Reid to overplay his 45-

card hand seem to have forgotten what is at stake in the threat to the 60-vote cloture rule:

--Giving Karl Rove the chance to appoint YOUNG Fundie wackos to the the USSC for life.

--The end of Roe v. Wade.

--Wholesale destruction of public education by tax-funded school vouchers for Falwell and other Fundie extremists.

--Oversight of the Voting Rights Act, up for renewal in 2007;

and many more speculative threats to the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the Separation of Powers.

[Itsthetruth]

16. Democrats Proved They Can't/Won't Fight The Right

They do know how to lose elections and their surrender to the Republicans on this and so many other issues in Congress should ensure their continued decline and inability to win elections.

I think the CounterPunch article got it right.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3726400

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3714550

[Itsthetruth]

19. Senator Reid Is A Bush Collaborator, Not A Bush Opponent

Senator Reid recently bragged about the leadership role he played in getting the right-wing corporate sponsored anti-consumer "class action tort reform" and bankruptcy bills passed by the Senate. Two bills that targeted working people while giving relief to big business interests and the rich. Reid served the big corporate interests well and worked against us. That's not misleading rhetoric, that's an established and documented fact.

So Senator Reid, the leader of the Democratic Party in the Senate, is the man we should trust to lead the fight against the Republican Party/George Bush corporate agenda? Sorry. I can't. Senator Reid has done far to much to hurt me and other consumers and working people. We are not stupid!

I can't trust nor believe Senator Reid if he claims that the "nuclear option" could not have been stopped short of surrendering to the Republicans and paving the way for Bush's judicial appointments.

Senator Reid is Bush collaborator, not a Bush oppositionist. If you keep that in mind you will have a clearer understanding of how politics really works today in Washington, D.C. Throw any fantasy land ideas that you might have learned in textbooks out the window.

This is real politics. Corporate sponsored and paid for politics.

[bpilgrim]

17. and when they NUKE it then

what will they analyst say, then, i wonder :shrug:

all he says is true in the snip but we live to fight the same LOSING battle latter is what i'm worried bout.

maybe by then it will be more obvious to EVERYONE bush is a dictator but will anyone have the GUTS after all this capitulating to FIGHT him anymore? does it matter? thats what i'm worried about. i think the longer we legitimize their shenanigans the worse it becomes

peace

[TomClash]

22. Nuclear fallout spreads everywhere

It will get real ugly, real fast.

Many new Amendments on every bill. Points of Order everywhere. Holds in Committee on every new nomination. Motions to proceed will be put to a vote. There won't be unanimous consent on anything. And that's just for starters.

[nonconformist]

18. Why is everyone overlooking this little fact:

Quote:
"# Because of the deal, Dobson can't choose the next Supreme Court justice. Bush's choice, if too extreme, faces the prospect of a filibuster."
End Quote

This whole thing is ALL based on "trust"! Trust with 7 Republicans! THEY have to determine if someone is "too extreme", and if they think they are not then the nuclear option is back on the table. Plus, if they have enough votes on a nominee that we're forced to filibuster to stop them, it's a GIVEN they'll determine it's not an "extraordinary circumstance" because the very people deciding that are voting for the nominee. *smacks forehead*

[lonestarnot]

20. Woohooo a person who gets it! We pulled off nothing short of an amazing

feat!