The “Group of 14” is taking a victory lap today and I can’t say I blame any of them. They struck a deal that seemed highly unlikely, they put a stop to the nuclear option crisis, and each of them is now a media darling. (The press inevitably fawns over anyone who supposedly bucks the far-left and far-right.)
And while I don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade, it’s worth pointing out that yesterday’s “compromise” may have a limited lifespan.
The arrangement is built on an insecure foundation. Not only is easy to imagine circumstances that will put this deal to the test, I’d be very surprised if it didn’t happen very soon.
Dems, for example, may feel it necessary to filibuster a Bush judicial nominee, arguing that the nomination represents an “extraordinary” circumstance. If Republicans in the Group of 14 believe there’s nothing extraordinary about the would-be judge, we’re right back where we were last week. Indeed, Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), one of the seven Republicans who signed the deal, was foreshadowing almost immediately after the deal was announced.
“Some of you who are looking at the language may wonder what some of the clauses mean. The understanding is — and we don’t think this will happen — but if an individual senator believes in the future that a filibuster is taking place under something that’s not extraordinary circumstances, we of course reserve the right to do what we could have done tomorrow which is to cast a yes vote for the ‘constitutional option.'”
This is hardly the talk of a negotiator with confidence in his achievement.
Rutgers University’s Ross Baker, a political scientist and Senate expert, said, “I think they did what the Senate very often does. They kicked the can down the road. They basically postponed a crisis and set up the predicate for another one in the future on the Supreme Court nomination.”
I think this is absolutely right. Bill Frist pushed the Senate the edge of a cliff and the Group of 14 brought them back a bit. It’s a temporary resolution — and there’s nothing in the agreement that will stop anyone from pushing them right back to the precipice again.
Indeed, when I look to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, I expect Bush to go out of his way to challenge this deal as soon as possible.
The Bush White House has taken an antagonistic attitude on judicial nominations from the beginning. There’s never been a hint of concession or compromise — the president taps the most radical would-be judges he can find, he picks the courts where they’ll have the most impact, and he dares Dems to stand in his way.
With this in mind, the president, who didn’t want to see yesterday’s deal come to fruition anyway, has plenty of incentive for mischief. Bush could start cooperating with lawmakers over the nominating process, as all of his predecessors have, but does anyone, anywhere, seriously believe that will happen?
There are still judicial vacancies for which Bush has not yet nominated anyone, and if he were anxious to undermine the compromise, the president may very well pull a Caligula and nominate his horse (or an equally unqualified human).
Dems will say the equine is a poor choice, Senate Republicans will express their support for the nominee, and the right will complain that the left must be “anti-horse” for even questioning the selection. Specter and Hatch will go easy on the horse during confirmation hearings, Dems will threaten a filibuster. The GOP will insist the Dems are abusing the agreement and the nomination isn’t “extraordinary” enough, and all of a sudden, we’re right back where we were.
The horse analogy is obviously meant in jest, but these general circumstances hardly seem farfetched. The Bush White House, I suspect, wants to push the Dems to their breaking point — and then push some more. The way to do that would be to nominate a jurist who Dems feel is beyond the pale (Federal Appeals Court Judge Jerry Falwell?) and who Republicans believe deserves an up-or-down vote.
It may not be today or tomorrow, but this deal will be put to the test before much longer.