If these Republicans would look at settlement rationally, they would recognize that it is a complete victory.
First ...
Congratulations. With the deal agreed to in the Senate, the Republican party just lost any money I was going to give next election season, and Senator Snowe has lost my vote.
DadaHead calls Slublog a wingnut for the picture he posted. The Therapist says the Republicans have been date raped.
These RINO's will undoubtedly be hailed by their real constituency, the MSM, as brave. But we know them for what they are - spineless cowards. Think about it - who is happier with this deal - Bill Frist or Harry Reid. There was only one way to judge the winners and losers here and that's by asking this question: Will every judicial nominee get an up or down vote? Since the answer is "No", we lose.Even Judas got 30 pieces of silver. The RINO's didn't even get that.
Jayson at Polipundit though, is optimistic:
Ergo, if Mark Dayton is replaced with Mark Kennedy, and Kent Conrad is replaced with Gov. Hoeven (or Stabenow is replaced with Jane Abraham), and Santorum is kept in the Senate, this deal will become moot as of Jan. 2007. And that says nothing about potential GOP pickups in places like Fla., NE, MD, WA, and N.J.With two more net conservative *votes* – which can be achieved even with a draw, from the standpoint of net *seats* – one of two scenarios automatically will be achieved:
1) The Democrats won’t be able to filibuster Jack Squat.
2) The GOP will have the votes to make the rule change.Elections do matter.
Molten Thought comes through with another analogy:
Once again, the GOP is playing solitaire while the Democrats play chess.
Harkonnendog also thinks it's a good move.
At first I thought "All this deal does is give the democrats more moral authority!" But maybe it really just gives them rope to hang themselves with. I suppose... maybe it will turn out to be just that. Given this deal, the only reason to filibuster judicial nominees is avowedly "extraordinary circumstances." I suppose this does move the burden of proof over to the democrats, and I suppose "extraordinary circumstances" is quite a high burden to meet. If the democrats cynically abuse the phrase it should be obvious and move moderates to the right...
Article comments
1 - Convex
Am I the only one that sees this as a straight loss for the democrats? Look to the beginning to put this in perspective: if you accept that the fillibuster SHOULD be there, than the democrats have effectively approved 3 controversial nominees in order to preserve power base. Nothing is lost by the GOP. Sad day.
2 - Mark Saleski
yep, i think they caved (again)....knocked over by the republicans endless stream of "up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote"
3 - Dave Nalle
It's a loss for the Dems, but not because of the three nominees. There's nothing at all controversial about the people that are getting confirmed. All 3 of them are more moderate than some of the judges Clinton appointed. If you think they're controversial you've been reading silliness from moveon.org.
The reason it's a loss for the Dems is that they've basically agreed to give up the filibuster on the next supreme court nominee, so now Rehnquist can retire and Bush can appoint a moderate Republican from the appelate court and they have to shut up about it.
And it's not a sad day. It's a victory for reason and compromise over partisanship and greed.
Dave
4 - Convex
I find your definition of the word "basically" amusing. In this case it means "not". If Bush tries to appoint a moderate (which is unlikely) then they may not fillbuster, just as they haven't for several of Bush's other appointees.
But if not, it all comes down to the definition of "extraordinary circumstances".
And who is saying Clinton's appointees haven't been controversial? As I recall, some of them had been stopped by republicans.
Stop building up these straw men that you can knock down. Stick to the issue.
5 - RJ
Oh, just great.
The GOP, in complete control of the Senate, the House, and the White House, blows its one and only opportunity to get actual CONSERVATIVES on the USSC.
Souter as Chief Justice? Maybe. Because the Dems sure as hell won't allow Scalia or Thomas to get that position...
6 - diamond heart ring
As such, it is imperative you do not allow the dazzling pictures of the diamonds to blind you to wise shopping practices. Diamondphd has a collection of beautiful affordable diamond jewelry set in 18k gold. Ashford has come a long way since we began reviewing diamond sites in 1999 diamond anniversary rings. We like the improvements in the search engine, especially in the sorting options offered. diamond heart ring http://www.natalia-diamonds.com/Engagement-Rings/Engagement-Ring_ItemTag_ER-002.aspx
7 - 2 diamond ring settings
The worlds biggest display of priceless diamonds has been abandoned by the Natural History Museum after police uncovered a plot to steal the jewels. The museum has permanently closed the display - billed as the 'largest and most spectacular diamond exhibition ever staged' with immediate effect diamond and rubber bracelets. This site also provides length-to-width ratios for fancy shapes. 2 diamond ring settings http://www.gold-custom.com/