I’ve been mulling over the Senate compromise to avert the Republican proposed rule change that would prohibit filibusters of Bush’s judicial nominees, and I’ve come to the conclusion that we kind of got hosed. As I’ve written in previous posts, the Democrats united and agreed to use the filibuster to block the appointment of ten activist judges from the far right. They did so with good reason-the ten nominees are bad judges and don’t belong on the Federal bench. Bill Frist countered with the proposed filibuster rule change, dubbed the “Nuclear Option” by Republican Trent Lott. Frist realized the term sounded to combative, so he changed it to the “Constitutional Option,” and he used that term numerous times in his statement last night.
Why do they have to come up with some biased name for everything? Nuclear? Constitutional? Neither name is accurate. “Nuclear” implies that removing the filibuster would annihilate the Senate-it wouldn’t, and “Constitutional” implies that the filibuster rule is addressed in the constitution, but it’s not. If they want to come up with a name for it, why don’t they call it what it is? Like maybe, “The 49% Minority Disenfranchisement Edict from on High.”
I digress…
Back to the hosing… Part of the deal is that the Judicial Committee will send Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William Pryor to the full Senate for a vote. All three of these judges that the Democrats justly opposed will presumably be confirmed by all 55 Republican senators who would fear for their lives if they voted against them, because they know a no-vote would have them whisked away to Gitmo, where they would see their Bibles flushed downed toilets, or to Uzbekistan, where there right arms would be boiled off. The Democrats also agreed not to use the filibuster except in “extraordinary circumstances.” Excuse me, but I’ve been hearing for over a month now that these three nominees were “extreme,” so letting three extreme nominees slip through doesn’t really seem like a good deal to me. It’s more like they folded. I think they should have played their hand and taken the chance on the vote to change the filibuster rules. Think about it: There were seven Republicans in this group that agreed to this deal in part because they were opposed to the rule change. Would they have voted to change it? That’s a good question that, if answered, would have some very real political consequences.
Presumably there is some sort of side deal that ends up with the Senate not voting on William Myers and Henry Saad. Okay so that’s two of the seven remaining after letting through Owens, Rogers Brown, and Pryor. What about the other five? Do they get through or do they fall into the category of “extraordinary circumstances?” If not, then the end result of the deal is that the Democrats will have blocked just two of Bush’s ten right-wing, activist judges. Like I said… HOSED.
From the middle: I listened to John McCain on the radio this morning, and he played the moderate very well. He said he knew that those on the far left and those on the far right would not be at all happy with the deal, but he thinks the end result is that the Senate can begin having real discussions about the merits of Bush’s nominees. He mentioned that part of the deal is that the Bush Administration is supposed to consult with the Senate before nominating judges in the future. McCain says that Bush’s interaction with the Senate will result in the nomination of more moderate judges. We’ll have to wait and see how this part of the deal plays out.
From the far right of the spectrum there’s James Dobson, a man who has no qualms about mixing his religion with politics, who responded with this:
“This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats. Only three of President Bush’s nominees will be given the courtesy of an up-or-down vote, and it’s business as usual for all the rest. The rules that blocked conservative nominees remain in effect, and nothing of significance has changed. Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist would never have served on the U. S. Supreme Court if this agreement had been in place during their confirmations. The unconstitutional filibuster survives in the arsenal of Senate liberals.
“We are grateful to Majority Leader Frist for courageously fighting to defend the vital principle of basic fairness. That principle has now gone down to defeat. We share the disappointment, outrage and sense of abandonment felt by millions of conservative Americans who helped put Republicans in power last November. I am certain that these voters will remember both Democrats and Republicans who betrayed their trust.”
Dobson of course thinks that liberals are at “war” with Evangelical Christians, so he uses words like “cabal” and “arsenal” in his statement. I’m sure that all the Dobson followers will receive instructions on how to combat the evil cabal very soon.
That aside, I do have a suggestion for Mr. Dobson: Put down your Old Testament and read The Constitution. You’ll learn two very important things: One; The Constitution does not forbid senators from using the filibuster; and two; The Constitution was not written by God or Satan. It’s a secular document, and you should be very, very happy about that, because it gives you the right to push your religious agenda (Your goal of course is to make everyone believe what you do and live like you do from the moment of birth until the moment of death-that moment to be decided on your terms, of course.) on your representatives in government. I can only hope they come to their senses and ignore you.
If you’d like to read some other interesting, more positive outlooks on the Senate compromise, I suggest Jack Hitt’s entry on This Modern World and Bob Harris.
Welcome to one party rule.
P.S. John McCain is a Bush sucking toady.