A challenge to all the people bitching about the compromise

[dolstein]

Please tell me who the six Republicans were that would have crossed the aisle to side with the Democrats against the nuclear option. That's how many votes the Democrats needed. I don't see how they would have gotten them if push came to shove. Of the seven Republicans in the gang of 14, only McCain had committed to voting against the nuclear option. Lindsey Graham has all but said he'd have voted to end filibusters if a compromise couldn't be reached. That means the Democrats would have had to run the table on the others.

[NWHarkness]

1. DeWine as well

Said he would have voted for the nuclear option if there had been no compromise.

[wtmusic]

2. IMO they were feeling the heat

and somehow, just somehow, I'd like to think that thousands of phone calls that went out from here and other boards across the country made a difference (even if it didn't I'm going to pretend it did :P)

[Hissyspit]

3. Polls as well, I would guess.

[wtmusic]

9. polls were pretty even

2/3 of Republicans opposing the filibuster, 2/3 of Democrats supporting it. That was the last one I heard.

[journalist3072]

4. That's not the point...

I am disgusted b/c I do not see what the Republicans have given up, or sacraficed, in this whole 'deal.' The word compromise suggest that 2 or more parties yield on something, in order to reach agreement. The only yielding appears to be from the Democrats.

[dolstein]

11. *SIGH* Actually, it IS the point

The Republicans gave up an immediate and certain victory on the nuclear option, and also gave up two of their nominees. The Democrats allowed up and down votes on three of the nominees, and agreed in the future to filibuster judicial nominees to extraordinary circumstances.

[journalist3072]

14. One point

The Democrats have already only been filibustering in extraordinary circumstances. They haven't been filibustering just to be filibustering. They are filibustering those nominees they feel are outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence.

George Bush has one of the highest rates of any recent president, in getting his judicial nomineees confirmed.

[FreedomAngel82]

17. But what did we give up?

[TnDem]

19. Explain this

HOW on God's green earth can the Democrats filibuster Owen, Pryor or Brown for SCOTUS when they essentially gave them a green light for the Appeals court.

How can they do it and not upset the "cabal of 14"?

I wished someone would explain this to me.

[Pryderi]

5. WE'LL NEVER FOCKING KNOW!

Look. This would have been the perfect opportunity to find out whether or not Republicans really are in lock step.

I think that there are a few Republicans that would have "jumped ship" at the last moment when it finally came down to voting against the filibuster.

The majority of Americans believe the filibuster should not be eliminated. Senators still have to answer to their constituency.

[EndElectoral]

15. Exactly

The Right will get their conservative judges...the centrist Repubs will look like they're preserving the filibuster, and when the Supreme Court nominee comes up, Frist will once again make the threat, and this time they won't back down. Please tell me what we have won, except delay, AND a group of Repubs who will not have to answer to their constiuents WHY they voted against the filibuster when they supported it under Clinton. A mistake by the Dems. We look like we settled for accepting limited extremist judges. THe people will say..what's the big deal...

Dammit! I wish Galloway was a Dem in this country.

[cally]

22. I don't think the Reps will use the

nuclear option on a Supreme Court nominee. The public will pay much more attention to a SC fight and will understand the implications of a RW whacko on the SC. Already the public was against the nuclear option but few paid attention. The Repubs will have to appear more moderate when the SC is the focus. I also think more Repub Senators will not vote for a whacko for the SC. Some are concerned about the influence of Dobson et al on the country.

[bunkerbuster1]

29. That's what Reid is gambling

and believe me, the Minority Leader had a hand in this compromise (as did Frist), no matter what they claim publicly.

The crisis is NOT over; it's just that the stakes are different, now, if (when) Chimpy nominates some nut for the SCOTUS.

We are gambling that there'd be hell to pay if the Reeps went nukeyoular in order to do something so baldly political over a judicial appointment. They are gambling that we won't push them to go nukeyoular in the first place.

(This is a very long/roundabout way of saying I agree with you.)

[housewolf]

6. The thing is...

some of the repubs in the "gang of 14" who brokered the deal were prepared to vote for the nuclear option had it come up for a vote tomorrow. They didn't like it, they preferred a compromise and worked their hearts out to get one, but in the end, -some- (I don't know how many) of them would have voted for it... and some of them even said so today, like Mike DeWane and maybe Lindsey Graham.

[merbex]

27. They can say anythig they want NOW; it is a bit like

having your cake and eating it too

Why bother to compromise at all? Because they have the fundamentalists' support it comes with ugly baggage. Maybe they are starting to figure this out

[kcwayne]

7. Just like the Dem party leadership, you are thinking tactically

The strategic thing to do would have been to take the fight all the way, and if the Dems lost the filibuster, they would have a huge campaign tool to reclaim the Senate and House, under the premise that they would restore democracy by re-instituting the filibuster.

This of course assumes the spineless maggots that populate the Democratic corridors would become vertebrates.

[cry baby]

10. In the meantime, however, while we wouldn't have the filibuster, * would

probably have an opportunity to nominate a replacement for a supreme court justice. Without a filibuster, our world would change for women in a big way.

[kcwayne]

21. The chief justice fight was lost in 2000

Scalia will be the next chief justice. There is no way to use a filibuster to stop it.

The US has already changed path away from liberal democracy to corporatocracy and is a constitutional amendment away from becoming a fascist state. The Democratic party is in shambles, and is on a losing streak that will take it to extinction. We have lost the war against the onslaught of single party Republicanism, and it is time for the Hail Mary to shock people into realizing what has happened to their government.

Without a radical change in strategy and tactics, the only way to reverse the course of this government from the inside will be violent revolution. It will crumble ala the Soviet Union in time, but I won't live long enough to see it, although my 13 year old daughter might.

The spokemen for the party are telling you to watch what you say and do today. Tomorrow, they will demand compliance.

[dolstein]

13. No, I'm not. I also support the compromise on principle.

It was wrong of the Republicans to deny up and down votes to Clinton's judicial nominees, and it's wrong for the Democrats to do the same to Bush's nominees. The filibuster should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. The compromise reaffirms this.

Sorry, but if the left-wing wants better judicial nominees, perhaps they should stop supporting unelectable candidates. If the Democrats controlled the Senate, or had one of their own in the White House, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[leesa]

32. They HAD up or down votes...they didn't make the cut.

Go Joe Lieberman, eh?

[cry baby]

8. not bitching here...I'm happy with the compromise.

Can't quite see how there is such a wide desparity between DUers on this issue. Did they want the filibuster to go away? It would have looked bad for the repubs for sure if they abolished the filibuster, but now, with the deal, we can still filibuster a SCOTUS nominee and save our society from an overturn of Roe and Lawerence vs. Kansas.

[Jim Lane]

12. An answer, from one of the "bitching" faction

You ask a fair question. I don't know if we would've won. I assume your point is that, without the compromise, the Democrats fight it out, they don't get enough Republican support, they lose, Frist gets the nuclear option. Quite plausible, I'll admit.

So now let me fire a couple challenges back at you:

1. Please tell me which Bush nominees were likely to be confirmed on that scenario (an unsuccessful fight) who are now likely to be defeated. Bear in mind that, in the event of a filibuster over any future nominee, the Republicans retain the right to decide that this doesn't qualify as "extraordinary circumstances" and that they can therefore resume going nuclear again.

2. I think the country would've been better off with an on-the-record vote on the nuclear option, so Republicans supporting it could be criticized on that ground in future elections. Do you agree?

P.S. Just after posting this, I heard Frist on C-SPAN. He's happy that these three nominees will be voted on. He's sad for all the others who weren't included, and he's pledging to do all in his power to get each and every one of them voted on. He condemns past filibusters and says (my rushed informal transcript): "This arrangement makes it much less likely, indeed nearly impossible, for such mindless filibusters to erupt." He doesn't seem to think he's given up anything.

[EndElectoral]

18. Frist certainly had no trouble using filibuster against Richard Paez.

SENATOR FRIST’S RECORD:

• Voted to filibuster one Clinton judicial nominee: Richard Paez.

• Voted to indefinitely postpone a vote on Richard Paez’s nomination, after the Republican filibuster was broken by a cloture vote to end debate.

Face it, the guy's a hypocrite.

[FreedomAngel82]

16. A good point about this

Someone wrote in and wrote how this is like the woman who keeps getting beaten by her husband and finally calls the police. Then when they get home she keeps going back to him. That's what it is with the democrats. And do you think they would've done this with Clinton's nominee's? Bullshit. This was abuse of power which the democrats, according to the rule's, already were promised. There shouldn't have been this talk in the first place. Purely an abuse of power from the republicans and the democrats gave up the fight. Pure shit. Even Fienstein from California says this deal wasn't good. These judge's are LIFE TIME! Does that not mean anything?

[Geek_Girl]

20. I don't buy it

They may be saying that but I don't think Frist had the votes. Otherwise why would he take a deal!


Reid on the other hand had to endorse the deal and declare victory otherwise we would have looked ridiculous, since he tried to broker a similar deal.

[bvar22]

23. The ONLY winners are...

the RICH people who OWN the Corporations. They bought 3 Federal seats for 3 fanatical Corporatist Judges. Lieberman and the DLC keep the MONEY channel open for those Democrats who have SOLD OUT the Working Americans.

EVERYBODY ELSE LOSES.
EVERYTING ELSE is spin.

3 brand new fanatics who ALWAYS rule in favor of Management over Labor.

The DLC is celebrating their HUGE victory. The Corporate Media will call it a victory for the rational level headed moderates.
People who WORK for a Living LOSE AGAIN!

[ElectroPrincess]

24. What compromise? The Republicans get their way AGAIN.

[radfringe]

25. so because the votes weren't there

the Dems roll over once more?

sorry - I disagree with this compromise - it's no compromise - it's roll-over and play dead

Repugs get their up/down vote on Owens/Brown - Dems get to say they may or may not filibuster the other nominees

what's there to prevent repugs from using the nuclear option in the future on the other nominees or on other issues? NOTHING

[JNelson6563]

26. I'm confused

Don't you need 67 votes to change the Senate rules?

Julie

[zipplewrath]

30. Yes, but no.

This was the real complaint, functionally. The republicans were going to change the rules by an absurd method. It takes a super majority to change the senate rules, unless a rule is found to be "unconstitutional". Then only a simple majority is required to declare a rule unconstitutional. So the Pubs were going to make a motion saying that the filibuster on nominees was "unconstitutional" at which point they only needed a majority to overturn it, not the 2/3 that the normal rules changes would have required. So they were going to overturn a rule that had been around in one way or another for a couple of hundred years by claiming it was suddenly "unconstitutional".

So the compromise for all these guys who were saying that they would have voted for the "nuclear option" was that they claim that the rule is unconstitutional, but they'll agree to its continued use anyway. That's called hypocrisy.

[sendero]

28. "Challenge?"

Your 'challenge' would only be a challenge to the brain dead.

Not one thing was gained here. Nothing. I'll bet you MONEY, that if the Dems so much as threaten to filibuster a SC or circuit court nominee in the future, the whole "end the filibuster" mileau will start up as if nothing happened yesterday.

I'd have rather just let them have their vote and end the damn thing now. At least then we'd have something to run against - as it is, they come out looking like the great compromisers and we come out with jack shit once again.

Some of you people are just like abused dogs. You haven't gotten any affection from your master for so long, just not getting kicked one day seems like progress. It's really pathetic.

[welshTerrier2]

31. "black and white" thinking

fwiw, i have not decided what i think about "the compromise" ...

but i have seen a ton of "black and white" thinking on the issue ... the argument made in the BP that Democrats wouldn't have had the votes to save the filibuster is a perfect example of "black and white" thinking ...

why? because it completely ignores the other prevalent argument ... the other argument has absolutely nothing to do with winning and losing ... it has to do with finally bringing the partisan battle to a head ... it has to do with standing at the window and shouting "we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore" ... it has to do with making it clear that Democrats are now officially "the opposition party" ... yes, we might have lost on the filibuster vote ... yes, we might have lost on all the judges ... of course, in the end we still might ... but perhaps there would have been value in loudly announcing that we have the guts to take on these bastards ... the compromise seems to have muddied that a bit ...

again, i really haven't made a decision on the compromise ... but it is disturbing to hear arguments that only look at one factor (e.g. winning or losing on the filibuster) to reach a conclusion on the issue ...