If You're Being Run Out of Town, Get Out Front and Try to Make It Look Like a Parade
Picking up on last week's topic, the Senate today avoided a showdown over the filibuster of judicial nominees. How? As usual, by the Democrats deciding to give in rather than actually stand for something.
Under the agreement, brokered by a group of moderates from both parties, 3 of the disputed judges will be guaranteed a vote -- which is to say, given the Republican majority, they have been guaranteed approval -- 2 others will be left to face the possibility of filibuster, the Republicans promise not to change the Senate rules on filibusters, and the Democrats promise not to use the filibuster on judicial nominees in the future except in "extraordinary circumstances."
In other words, the Republican majority will allow the Senate to keep the filibuster, so long as the Democrats promise never to use it. Can somebody explain to me how that's a compromise? The filibuster is just as unavailable as if the rules had been changed. The right-wing interest groups get 3 of their most prized darlings -- Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and Bill Pryor -- confirmed for certain, and possibly 2 others. And the ground is now leveled and paved for President Bush to get absolutely anyone he wants appointed to fill the 2 or possibly 3 Supreme Court seats that will become vacant before he leaves office.
So what is it, exactly, that the Democrats got out of this "compromise"?
In a word, nothing.
Well, almost nothing. In essense, they got a commitment from the Republicans to call this thing a "compromise" rather than hooting about their total victory. The main thing the Dems got, however, is that they don't have to stand up and actually fight for a principle, and that seems to be more valuable to the Democratic leadership these days than anything else. This was an issue where the Democrats actually had the moral high ground. The Republican majority was wrong to try to change the rules; especially the way they were going to do it. And according to all the polls, Americans didn't want it to happen. But the Dems saw that Americans also thought all judicial nominees should get an up or down vote. Rather than taking on the task of standing up for a good principle and educating the American people on the fact that it has never been the case that all judicial nominees get an up or down vote, they caved in. The Dems were also correct in opposing these particular judges. Pryor is a tougher call, but from what I know of Brown's and Owen's records, neither of them has any business at all on the federal bench.
Yet the Democrats caved utterly. This "compromise" is an unmitigated disaster. It is no compromise at all, but an unconditional surrender. Once again, the Democratic Party has failed the country. But, hey, at least they don't have to stand up for that, either, since the Republicans have agreed to let them off the hook by calling this a "compromise."
Days like this are why I am not a Democrat.
Under the agreement, brokered by a group of moderates from both parties, 3 of the disputed judges will be guaranteed a vote -- which is to say, given the Republican majority, they have been guaranteed approval -- 2 others will be left to face the possibility of filibuster, the Republicans promise not to change the Senate rules on filibusters, and the Democrats promise not to use the filibuster on judicial nominees in the future except in "extraordinary circumstances."
In other words, the Republican majority will allow the Senate to keep the filibuster, so long as the Democrats promise never to use it. Can somebody explain to me how that's a compromise? The filibuster is just as unavailable as if the rules had been changed. The right-wing interest groups get 3 of their most prized darlings -- Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and Bill Pryor -- confirmed for certain, and possibly 2 others. And the ground is now leveled and paved for President Bush to get absolutely anyone he wants appointed to fill the 2 or possibly 3 Supreme Court seats that will become vacant before he leaves office.
So what is it, exactly, that the Democrats got out of this "compromise"?
In a word, nothing.
Well, almost nothing. In essense, they got a commitment from the Republicans to call this thing a "compromise" rather than hooting about their total victory. The main thing the Dems got, however, is that they don't have to stand up and actually fight for a principle, and that seems to be more valuable to the Democratic leadership these days than anything else. This was an issue where the Democrats actually had the moral high ground. The Republican majority was wrong to try to change the rules; especially the way they were going to do it. And according to all the polls, Americans didn't want it to happen. But the Dems saw that Americans also thought all judicial nominees should get an up or down vote. Rather than taking on the task of standing up for a good principle and educating the American people on the fact that it has never been the case that all judicial nominees get an up or down vote, they caved in. The Dems were also correct in opposing these particular judges. Pryor is a tougher call, but from what I know of Brown's and Owen's records, neither of them has any business at all on the federal bench.
Yet the Democrats caved utterly. This "compromise" is an unmitigated disaster. It is no compromise at all, but an unconditional surrender. Once again, the Democratic Party has failed the country. But, hey, at least they don't have to stand up for that, either, since the Republicans have agreed to let them off the hook by calling this a "compromise."
Days like this are why I am not a Democrat.
posted by juvenal_urbino | 6:03 AM
3 Comments:
Yep, the Demos are in trouble. Not that it breaks my heart or anything.
Well, I would say that those like McCarthy on the right who wanted to invent some sort of constitutional right to a vote by the full Senate were going to be disappointed no matter what the outcome. Even the nuclear option wouldn't have created that.
It's a bit comical to watch those folks complain that the judicial branch invented the right to privacy, then turn around and, in the same breath, invent a right to a vote on behalf of judicial nominees. Apparently, judicial activism is in the eye of the beholder.
Also, many on the right are angry about this deal simply because they think they're entitled to everything. As I've noted before, America is not a pure democracy, and being in the majority doesn't mean one has dictatorial powers. Those folks are just going to have to learn to live with that.
The problem with the deal, from my side of the line, is that it seems perfectly reasonable for the conservatives to get only 95% of the judges they want. The Dems weren't being unreasonable here. And they had principle on their side. Yet still they caved.
Apparently, Frist is already thumbing his nose at the deal by filing for cloture on Myers.
Post a Comment
<< Home