« Not one Dime | Main | Sudan, Mass Murder, and the War on Terror »
May 25, 2005
More on the Cave-in
Yeah, some "compromise", eh? Then why are the Democrats claiming victory?
Democratic leaders claimed victory yesterday over the deal senators cut regarding filibusters of judicial nominees, while most Republicans said it violated their principles and conservative activists vowed retribution.Just the people I want on my side. When the likes of Kennedy, Schumer, and Pelosi praise something you know there's something wrong."Our republic stands strong. Our Constitution is solid. Our flag flies over a nation that has reaffirmed its faith in freedom," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, while Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, and Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi praised the deal for averting a crisis.
And what exactly was this "compromise" all about? What did we agree on?
No one seems to know. The Democrats crow that they can still filibuster in "extreme circumstances", a term that was undefined in the agreement:
The primary point of contention is the definition of "extraordinary circumstances" under which the deal permits Democrats to mount future judicial filibusters without facing Republican retribution such as the nuclear option.And indeed it looks like they will filibuster the nomination of anyone to the supreme court but a complete milquetoast like a David Souter. What this means is that the president either cannot nominate his first choice (or maybe second or even third). Instead, we will be left with wishy-washy nominees who will do heaven know what on the bench."The terms 'extraordinary circumstances' do not lend themselves to any easy interpretation," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said yesterday. "But when the Democratic leader observes that means 'occasional' and 'very infrequent,' that is very reassuring."
Within minutes of the deal's announcement Monday night, NARAL Pro-Choice America announced that "extraordinary circumstances" should include any nominees who don't state their positions on Roe v. Wade, the court case that made abortion a constitutional right. Other liberals have defined "extraordinary circumstances" as any vacancy on the Supreme Court.
Andrew McCarthy on NRO sums up the situation:
Ugh.Let’s say, instead, that they simply gave us the bottom line: (a) three of the president’s nominees get an up-or-down vote (i.e., exactly three of the pending seven left standing after the Democrats — in that spirit of compromise — whittled down from the original ten); (b) the Democrats remain free to filibuster (but only on the strict condition that, uh, well, that the Democrats feel like filibustering); and (c) the Republicans, on the brink of breaking four years of obstruction, decide instead to punt (and on the eve of a likely battle over a Supreme Court vacancy, no less).
Sound familiar? Yes it does: It’s the deal that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid offered a week ago — and that was flatly rejected as paltry and unprincipled.
The deal, moreover, says, “Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith.” Well, their responsibility under the “Consent” part of the Clause is to confirm or reject the president’s nominees. Period.
I went to Senator Warner's website this morning (I live in Virginia) and wrote him a not expressing my displeasure with him. I would encourage everyone to write their senators regardless of whether they are one of the seven who caved or not. Those who hold steadfast need encouragement also. I wrote Senator Allen a few weeks ago and will do so again later today.
You can read a copy of the "agreement" here (thanks to NRO). I won't have time this morning to go over it but will try to do so this evening.
Posted by Tom at May 25, 2005 7:41 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/379
