{"id":4054,"date":"2005-04-25T13:22:35","date_gmt":"2005-04-25T17:22:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com\/archives\/4054.html"},"modified":"2005-04-25T13:22:35","modified_gmt":"2005-04-25T17:22:35","slug":"it-depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-compromise-is","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/it-depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-compromise-is\/","title":{"rendered":"It depends on what the meaning of ‘compromise’ is"},"content":{"rendered":"

When it comes to judicial nominees and the nuclear option, the word of the weekend was “compromise.” Just yesterday, David Broder floated his idea for his “judicious compromise<\/a>“; Bill Frist said<\/a> he “intends to offer a compromise”; and Joe Biden said<\/a> Dems “should compromise” and “let a number of [these controversial judicial nominees] go through.”<\/p>\n

This talk may sound encouraging to those who want to avoid the nuclear-option fight that remains on the horizon, but there’s a reason there has been so little progress towards a compromise thus far. Let’s step back and consider the competing agendas here. This is what the Dems want (in this order):<\/p>\n

1. To stop Bush from nominating right-wing reactionaries to lifetime positions on the federal judiciary<\/p>\n

2. To maintain the right to block the worst of the worst of these nominees, when necessary, through filibusters<\/p>\n

3. To prevent Republicans from benefiting too much from having blocked 60 Clinton judicial nominees between 1995 and 2000<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Conversely, here’s what the Republicans want (in this order):<\/p>\n

1. To help the White House stack the federal judiciary with as many right-wing reactionaries as possible<\/p>\n

2. To eliminate the right of Dems to get in the way of these nominees<\/p>\n

3. To take advantage of judicial vacancies left open by having blocked 60 Clinton judicial nominees between 1995 and 2000<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In every compromise that’s been floated, Dems for 0-for-3, Republicans go 3-for-3. Incentive to strike some kind of deal? Not so much.<\/p>\n

Of course, there’s a very real possibility that Frist & Co. won’t have the votes to pull this off. There’s also a chance that Republicans will delay the whole thing to see if they can generate broader support. But let’s say neither of these happen and Frist is ready to execute the nuclear option this week or next. Is all hope lost? Is there any<\/em> room for compromise? Maybe.
\n
\nKevin Drum mentioned an idea<\/a> in passing a few weeks ago, but in light of all this discussion over “compromises,” it’s the only suggestion I’ve seen that has any merit.<\/p>\n

If Democrats were<\/i> to agree to eliminate the filibuster, the deal should take effect only after the 2008 election and should also include reinstatement of the old blue slip rules. That’s a fair trade.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I’m inclined to agree. I’m still very much inclined to support the filibuster rule, but if<\/i> there was going to be a deal whereby every judicial nominee had<\/i> to get an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor, then let’s have it take effect in 2009.<\/p>\n

In truth, even this deal benefits Bush and the GOP, because Republicans will have successfully blocked 60 Clinton nominees over eight years, while Dems probably won’t get to one-fourth that many over Bush’s eight years. If anyone wins from this arrangement, it’s the GOP. <\/p>\n

Still, the “Drum Compromise” (Kevin, can I call it that?) does a better job of any that I’ve seen in dealing with the three items on both parties’ agenda, listed above. Republicans get something they want (the end of judicial filibusters); the Dems get something they want (the ability to block the worst of Bush’s nominees). Unlike every other compromise solution that’s been offered, there’s some mutual sacrifice and mutual gain.<\/p>\n

It’s not my first choice, but if there’s going to be a deal, it’s something I could live with.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

When it comes to judicial nominees and the nuclear option, the word of the weekend was “compromise.” Just yesterday, David Broder floated his idea for his “judicious compromise“; Bill Frist said he “intends to offer a compromise”; and Joe Biden said Dems “should compromise” and “let a number of [these controversial judicial nominees] go through.” […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[617],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4054","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4054","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4054"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4054\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4054"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4054"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4054"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}