Support NeoGAF

[Outdoor Miner]

By DAVID ESPO AP Special Correspondent
The Associated PressThe Associated Press

WASHINGTON May 23, 2005 — Centrists from both parties reached a compromise Monday night to avoid a showdown on President Bush's stalled judicial nominees and the Senate's own filibuster rules, officials from both parties said.

These officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the agreement wuld clear the way for yes or no votes on some of Bush's nominees, but make no guarantee.

Under the agreement, Democrats would pledge not to filibuster any of Bush's future appeals court or Supreme Court nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances."

For their part, Republicans agreed not to support an attempt to strip Democrats of their right to block votes.

Guess no one won out on that deal, but if I had to pick a winner, I'd say Repubs got the better end of it. So they can block 62 of Clinton's nominees, but it isn't right to block 10 of the more extreme of Bush's choices.

Grow some balls Dems, you were playing them perfectly up until yesterday.

 

[ToxicAdam]

The two-party system is awful.

 

[Powdered Toastman]

"Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen!"

 

[VictimOfGrief]

Guess no one won out on that deal, but if I had to pick a winner, I'd say Repubs got the better end of it. So they can block 62 of Clinton's nominees, but it isn't right to block 10 of the more extreme of Bush's choices.

Grow some balls Dems, you were playing them perfectly up until yesterday.

Bluntly to say, that the Dems won't have balls for maybe.... another 3 years. Come back later and tell that to them. :lol

 

[MrPing1000]

Bluntly to say, that the Dems won't have balls for maybe.... another 3 years. Come back later and tell that to them. :lol

when Mrs. Clinton becomes President

 

[VictimOfGrief]

when Mrs. Clinton becomes President

Over America's dead twitching hands. :lol

 

[Fragamemnon]

Guess no one won out on that deal, but if I had to pick a winner, I'd say Repubs got the better end of it.

I don't think so. With a 10 seat majority Frist (and when I say Frist, I mean Dobson) couldn't get the votes he needed. Instead, he got waylaid, McCain launched the first salvo in the 2008 primaries, and the Republicans look like they might only get two or three at most of their contraversial judges through (we'll see when the votes come up).

In return, the Democrats preserve the filibuster for the SC, preventing Dobson from hand-picking a complete nutjob. Yes, there are judges worse than Scalia and even worse than Thomas, believe it or not, and he'd pick them and install them if the nuclear option had gone through.

Reid had 49 votes and needed a 2 out of 4 break on the remaining Republican undecideds. As a longtime bridge player, I know better than to bet too much on the 2-2 trump break, and know that it's way more likely that the three or even all four Republicans would have been cornered into voting with their party. Similarly, those Republicans didn't want a vote on it at all, and I'd say they wanted to not vote more than Reid wanted to vote and lose. I'd bet on that, in fact.

What Dems Lose:

- A couple of circuit court appointments.
- An artifically large definition of how the filibuster is applied to judicial nominees. Yes, the criteria is more constrained now, but in reality it was already there.


What the GOP Loses:
- Frist is dead in the water, both as a majority leader and as a 2008 hopeful.
- Moderate Senate leadership rebukes and bucks the President. Look for the voting on Brown-if she gets shot down in her up or down vote, then it's a real slap in the face.
- Loses the right to handpick the next SCOTUS seat when Reinquist steps down this summer/fall.
- Further fractures the GOP governing coalition along their key fault lines-religion.
- Makes Republicans look weak for seeking out compromise with the minority when they had such a large majority.
- Nuclear option remains but going nuclear on a SCOTUS appointment is political suicide, especially after so many Republicans have dismissed the notion of the filibuster as unconstituational, unnatural, and unprecedented.

I think the Democrats got the good end of the deal here by quite some margin. I think they pay more up front, which is fine considering what little attention the public is paying, for long term gains in fracturing the GOP coalition and lame ducking Frist and maybe even Bush.

 

[Drensch]

Over America's dead twitching hands.

Bush is working on it.

 

[Phoenix]

Bunch of logical stuff

You da man.

I am glad that both centrist sides could come to a compromise. The "nuclear option" would have just been awful and would have only served to give the senate a black eye. I do think that both sides will come out of this with better public opinion (for those few of us who tracked it). The republicans will come off as having played fair with the minority and the democrats will start to look like they are developing some testicular fortitude.

 

[ronito]

When are we ever going to learn that the two party system doesn't work? Am I the only one who sees it?

If you have two religions in your land, the two will cut each other's throats; but if you have thirty religions, they dwell in peace. --Voltaire

 

[Phoenix]

When are we ever going to learn that the two party system doesn't work? Am I the only one who sees it?

Define "doesn't work".... the country has been not working for roughly 300 years!

 

[Fragamemnon]

If you have two religions in your land, the two will cut each other's throats; but if you have thirty religions, they dwell in peace.

I agree with Volty in concept-that a soceity that accepts pluralism as a norm will be a very tolerant society-but this can only work with some religions, and the metaphor doesn't extend well to the American political system. To change the two-party system would mean changing the Constitution, specifically the executive branch provisions. And I don't think that can happen.

 

[etiolate]

Now we can get to the up and down action.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Grow some balls Dems, you were playing them perfectly up until yesterday.

"LIEBERMAAAAAAAAAAN!!"

 

[Loki]

I agree with Volty in concept-that a soceity that accepts pluralism as a norm will be a very tolerant society-but this can only work with some religions, and the metaphor doesn't extend well to the American political system. To change the two-party system would mean changing the Constitution, specifically the executive branch provisions. And I don't think that can happen.

Please elaborate. I'm not too well-versed on Constitutional law (though I know the usual stuff ), but I never thought that there was an inherent conflict between the Constitution and the notion that there could be more than two dominant political parties-- I just thought that was simply "how it's worked itself out over the years." I'm very curious as to what you meant.


Unless it's something blatantly obvious and I'm just missing it for whatever reason. I mean, we have the libertarian and green (and other fringe) parties-- are you saying that their existence and participation in the political process is only legal/permitted so long as they don't garner too much popular support? That would seem to be...odd. I'm just not following...

 

[slayn]

Please elaborate. I'm not too well-versed on Constitutional law (though I know the usual stuff ), but I never thought that there was an inherent conflict between the Constitution and the notion that there could be more than two dominant political parties-- I just thought that was simply "how it's worked itself out over the years." I'm very curious as to what you meant.


Unless it's something blatantly obvious and I'm just missing it for whatever reason. I mean, we have the libertarian and green (and other fringe) parties-- are you saying that their existence and participation in the political process is only legal/permitted so long as they don't garner too much popular support? That would seem to be...odd. I'm just not following...

perhaps he means it just won't ever happen unless the constitution is changed to force it to happen?

 

[Phoenix]

Please elaborate. I'm not too well-versed on Constitutional law (though I know the usual stuff ), but I never thought that there was an inherent conflict between the Constitution and the notion that there could be more than two dominant political parties--

There isn't. There could be 800 political parties involved in the system the way that it is currently designed. The framers had no idea what the parties were going to be considering that the Constitution was done in 1787 (ratified in 1789) and the political parties cropped up almost 50 years later with the Democratic party in 1828 and the Republican Party in 1854.

 

[ronito]

Yes, but the problem with the party system is that politicians by and large do what's best for their party and not for the people. The more power one has the more the opposing party refuses to work with it.

 

[Loki]

perhaps he means it just won't ever happen unless the constitution is changed to force it to happen?

That would be an odd stance to take, then-- wouldn't it just be a matter of gaining popular support and winning some local/state/federal elections? My question was whether or not there is some sort of legal (i.e., Constitutional) proscription on the number of dominant political parties we're permitted to have, since that was the implication present in his post.

There isn't. There could be 800 political parties involved in the system the way that it is currently designed. The framers had no idea what the parties were going to be considering that the Constitution was done in 1787 (ratified in 1789) and the political parties cropped up almost 50 years later with the Democratic party in 1828 and the Republican Party in 1854

Yeah, that was my thinking as well (along with other evidences to the contrary, such as the existence of the libertarian and other "fringe" groups; also, the fact that, in my reading on these matters, I have never encountered anything which-- either explicitly or implicitly-- would forbid a multi-party system). Which was why I was curious as to what he meant; I still am-- and not in an argumentative way, either. Perhaps he knows things that we do not with regard to this subject.

 

[Phoenix]

Yes, but the problem with the party system is that politicians by and large do what's best for their party and not for the people. The more power one has the more the opposing party refuses to work with it.

That's a problem with ANY system where you have elections that require the expenditure of funds (i.e. all of them). This isn't exclusive to a party system at all. Most kingdoms have royal families that are looking out for themselves at the expense of the people. Most dictators aren't exactly falling over themselves to make their people better. The more power distributed into a small number of people, the more likely you will have a system that will cater to kickbacks and special interests.

 

[ronito]

All very true. But I would be complaining if I was in one of those other kinds of government too. It doesn't make it OK, right or even acceptable.

Can't I just compain?

 

[Phoenix]

All very true. But I would be complaining if I was in one of those other kinds of government too. It doesn't make it OK, right or even acceptable.

Can't I just compain?

Of course - you just can't make claims when you do

 

[Fragamemnon]

The original poster wanted a n-party system that offered him a choice of gaining an elected official without "throwing away" their votes. Now, at a legislative branch, this can be managed with some degree of success.

The House of Representatives is increased greatly in size, and proportional representation and coalition majoirty is introduced in the case that one party cannot win a majority a working agreement can be made to have a Speaker elected to run the House. States can handle how they want to elect their Senators, provided that they obey the 17th Amendment. Majority there can be put into place through similar parlimentary measures.

Now the big concern is the executive branch, and that is mainly because of the Electoral College. States handle the designation of electors in a way other than winner takes all (just amend the state constitution)-but in the end, with truly viable 3rd parties, the majority clause of the electoral college would result in electors voting for anything but one of the two biggest parties, and not for their own candidate.

"Vote for me, though any electors we get will then vote for this other guy" doesn't make much sense. But that's what we'd be left with, unless we want to go the British route of having a leader sitting in Congress become President, which would also require changes to the Constitution.

 

[Incognito]

Pat Buchanan just had a meltdown on Hardball. :lol "For conservatives, the last 30 years, the counter-movement, all for this end game: to control the Supreme Court, to end liberal rule from the bench... has just failed. We've given away the store and it's incredibly disheartening. I just can't believe it."

:lol :lol

 

[Incognito]

Well, that didn't take long. Looks like Frist is going to force the hands of the 14 "moderates".

From ThinkProgress...First, last night, where Frist indicated he'd abide by the agreement:

Mr. President, a lot has been said about the uniqueness of this body. And, indeed, our Senate is unique. And we all, as individuals and collectively as a body, have a role to play in ensuring its cherished nature remains intact.
And, indeed, as demonstrated by tonight’s agreement and by the ultimate implementation of that agreement, we have done just that.

To today...

Senate Majority Leader Frist will file for cloture on President Bush’s nomination of William Myers to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later this week, according to sources on and off Capitol Hill, wasting no time in testing the resolve of 14 Republican and Democratic senators who forced at least a temporary halt to the battle over Democratic filibusters of President Bush’s judicial picks.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Under the agreement, Democrats would pledge not to filibuster any of Bush's future appeals court or Supreme Court nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances."

For their part, Republicans agreed not to support an attempt to strip Democrats of their right to block votes.

Really, this mostly seems pretty useless to me. I mean, if the problem begins with the fact that there's such a hugeass difference of opinion on a potential judge, then of course there'd be a huge disagreement on what entails "extraordinary circumstances" as well, and it's back to square one.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

when Mrs. Clinton becomes President

:lol :lol :lol

I've said it before, I'll say it again; potentially future Minority Leader Frist would not like if his bill got thru. No siree.

 

[Outdoor Miner]

Really, this mostly seems pretty useless to me. I mean, if the problem begins with the fact that there's such a hugeass difference of opinion on a potential judge, then of course there'd be a huge disagreement on what entails "extraordinary circumstances" as well, and it's back to square one.

Exactly.

If the opportunity to nominate an SC justice presents itself in the next 4 years, and a controversial one is made... we'll be right back where we started. Square one indeed.

 

[Jonnyboy117]

Well, that didn't take long. Looks like Frist is going to force the hands of the 14 "moderates".

From ThinkProgress...First, last night, where Frist indicated he'd abide by the agreement:

(quote)


To today...

(quote)

Well, asking for a cloture vote does not go against the agreement as I understand it, nor was the ability to bring a cloture vote ever at issue. Frist's problem is that he could not have won multiple cloture votes to end the filibusters, because senators in general are extremely loathe to ever vote for cloture. So he wanted to change the rules so that cloture votes would not be needed to end judicial filibusters; those filibusters would not even be allowed under his proposed system. As far as I know, cloture votes are extremely rare, and their passage (which would end a filibuster in progress) is even more rare. In fact, the ability to vote for cloture and end a filibuster did not even exist for a long time, because senators believed so passionately in unlimited debate. They eventually had to add the option because some of the filibustering was getting completely out of hand, but even then, it has very rarely been used.

(Sorry if any of this is inaccurate, I'm going off my memory from high school government class.)