What’s the deal?

May 24, 2005

OK, so is the “Group of 14” deal that thwarted the nuclear option a good one or not? Who wins? Who loses? Blogging doesn’t lend itself well to subtleties and unforeseen variables, but I think it’s fair to call this arrangement a “mixed bag.”

On the surface, Dems didn’t gain very much at all. They “won” something they already had: the ability to filibuster unqualified judicial nominees. In turn, Dems were forced to make a dramatic concession: three awful nominees — Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and Bill Pryor, none of whom should have been nominated in the first place — have been cleared for confirmation votes. They’ll soon take their lifetime positions on the federal appeals bench, which is a genuine travesty.

Making matters worse, Dems have pledged to use filibusters in the future only in “extraordinary circumstances.” The phrase not only is maddeningly ambiguous, it undercuts the (accurate) Dem position — we’ve already limited filibusters to “extraordinary circumstances.”

And yet, here we are the morning after. The Dems are smiling, Bill Frist is dejected, and the right is apoplectic. This isn’t a “doth protest too much” situation; conservatives are filled with genuine rage because they’re convinced that they’ve suffered a horrible defeat and betrayal. Who’s right?

Nearly all of this comes down to a simple question: who would have won the nuclear option floor vote. If you believe Dems would have won and maintained the pre-yesterday status quo, the deal is a disaster — three dreadful nominees that would have been blocked are moving forward, so the deal represents a real setback. If you believe Frist would have won today, the deal for Dems is a dramatic success story — instead of being left with nothing but frustration, Henry Saad and William Myers are out, and the ability to filibuster future nominees, including Supreme Court nominees, is still on the table.

So, who would have won the floor vote today? No one’s sure, but The Hill reported this morning that Arlen Specter communicated to GOP leaders that he was prepared to support the nuclear option. Without Specter’s vote, Dems would have found it almost impossible to get the six Republican defections needed to defeat the effort.

Given this, yesterday’s deal could have been a whole lot worse.

Interesting. Specter was on the local Clear Channel station this morning, telling the host he would *not* have supported the nuclear option. That’s probably the case.

My guess is that he gave the very strong impression he would have voted nuclear to get the Democrats to compromise a little and cement the deal. (While being vague enough with Frist to give him severe agita and shake loose a few Republicans to compromise).

He’s a slippery character, which is not always a bad thing……….(“not proven, indeed”)

  • this is not over. look for the white house to continue to nominate finge judge after fringe judge. they will try to force a filibuster again in order to change the rules. rove will not give up on this so easily.

  • Ah, yes. And the slippery slope ONLY tilts 2 degrees higher instead of 10.
    Anyone know where I can buy those sandwich boards with that catchy “The End is Near” tagline?

  • I think it’s mostly a win for us. On one hand the phrase ‘extraordinary circumstance’ is troubling. On the other, the filibuster is an extroardinary act in response to an extraordinary circumstance. The agreement seems to aknowlegde that the filibuster has legitimacy, which undercuts the argument to kill it.

    While Frist may have had 50 votes, he didn’t have 50 enthusiastic votes. Now he’s in a real jam, with no way out. The rabid righties will want him to go nukuler again, but I have to think there are many repubs who do not have the stomach for it. The nukuler option didn’t poll well, so anyone in a close ’06 race risks radioactive fallout. Frist will get internal repub pressure from both sides, with no room for compromise. Compromise is a mortal sin with the rabid right.

    If 3 of these nominees get approved, that means we blocked 4. That’s not a great deal, but it’s none to shabby from a minority position.

    So as I see the deal, we keep the filibuster, we put Frist in a high temp pressure cooker, and we blocked 4 of 7 nominees. I’ll take it.

  • I don’t see conservative anger as evidence the Dems got the upper hand. The cultists see anything short of the Democratic Party’s complete and utter destruction as treasonous. Democrats are always happy to come out a little bit behind for the sake of striking a deal.

    Anything short of leaving 60 judicial vacancies at the end of Bush’s term will be a loss for Dems.

  • It is being reported that Warner has stated one of the three who will be receiving an up or down vote will lose in a bipartisan vote total. My guess is brown, but if that is the case, then this isn’t too bad of a temporary compromise.

  • I heard someone (sorry for the anonymous sourcing, but my editor says they’re reliable 😉 ) on the radio this weekend say that letting Owens through is not such a big deal since the court she’s heading to (5th circuit) is already just about the most conservative court in the country. She wouldn’t be changing the balance on it.

    Brown is more troubling, if only because she is a true ideological whacko, (as oppsed to a mere coporate whore like Owens) and the DC court deals with more important regluatory issues than the other circuits. The question is how does she affect the balance of that court, and I don’t know the answer to that.

    At the end of the day, however, it’s unlikely that these nominees would have been replaced by anyone who would decide cases any differently. They would probably just be a little less obviously insane.

    I have to admit, the con caterwauling about this is a pleasant thing to behold. Whether it really indicates a loss for them or not is besides the point. Given the total Repub domination these days, it’s enjoyable to see them wail once in a while.

    These days, I’ll take my jollies from wherever they may come.

  • There was some talk on dKos that a few Repubs would vote against Owen and/or Brown. I would imagine that Chafee, Collins and Snowe are already solid “nyets” on those two.

    • Comments are closed.