By the time this thing plays out the Democrats (at least the “arch-liberal” and “running for President” varieties) will be forced to mount a filibuster. Which brings us back to the GOP threat of implementing the “constitutional” or “nuclear” option, which would involve amending Senate rules to forbid filibusters of judicial nominees – which will put the filibuster compromisers square on the griddle.
The seven Republican members of the “gang of 14” will feel immense pressure to support a filibuster rules change and the seven Democrat members will be pressured to oppose it – initially. I say initially because my theory is, at that point, they’ll realize that the jig is up and they’ll vote to end the filibuster of Roberts by voting for cloture and “sit their friends down”, take a hug lump from the Democrat faithful for doing so and consequently save the judicial filibuster and live to “obstruct another day”. Either that or they lose both the battle on Roberts and their long-term battle with Bush over the judiciary.
My guess is, after it’s all said and done (which will be a lot), they’ll take one for the team – whether the team appreciates it or not. The Democrat faithful will feel betrayed and this will open the possibility of some damage to the cohesiveness of the Democrat constituency / coalition in the long-term.
In that sense, the “compromise” will have been a pyrrhic victory for the Democrats. Instead of “fighting the fight” and going down swinging (becoming heroes to the base and whipping them into a frenzy), they’re about to be put in a position of directly opposing their core supporters. And when the inevitable blow-up comes, the Democrats will form a circular firing squad.
That’s what makes this pick so brilliant. The conservative base gets what it wanted, a real conservative judge to replace a swing vote on the Supreme Court, and the White House gets what it wanted, credit from conservatives for the pick and to drive a wedge between the Democrats and their base.
Christmas came a little early this year.
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
Interesting summary of the situation. One wonders if the Democrats might not notice the embarassment which a crisis over this nomination would create for them - considering they supported Roberts in the past - and be smart enough to back off and not try to obstruct the nomination and at least look sensible while taking their lumps. It's going to be a battle of hubris and common sense for them, and based on past behavior the hubris tends to win out. The Dems have a strong self-destructive streak.
Dave
2 - Nancy
I hope the Dems have enough common sense to straighten up & use their brains for once in recent years; I really hate living under one-party rule, and even more I hate an opposition party that's so wimpy, spineless, & disorganized they can't stop gnawing on each others' throats instead of concentrating on coming back. Better yet, I'd like to see a bunch of middle-of-the-roaders or someone start a 3rd party affiliated with NEITHER the GOP or DNC, which doesn't mind giving either group the finger!
3 - Dave Nalle
On that last bit we can agree, Nancy. The real test is whether the group of 14 or whatever they are calling themselves has the balls to actually strike out and become truly politically independent.
Dave
4 - RJ
There will be no filibuster of this nominee. He's too ... nice. And telegenic. And he has almost no paper trail.
HOWEVER, the next Bush pick to the USSC will likely be more overtly right-wing. And the Dems will go utterly bat-shit over it.
Good times! :-/
5 - Dave Nalle
Nah, if Roberts gets by the next one will be more moderate, but still right of center.
Dave
6 - Anthony Grande
Too bad the poor DemocRATs don't have a majority anywhere so they can't block any of Bush's nominees.
No Dave, I don't know if you noticed but Bush is extremely right wing and he will definately appoint another extreme conservative to fight the war against abortion and gay marriage.
7 - RJ
"Nah, if Roberts gets by the next one will be more moderate, but still right of center."
I disagree.
The GOP can deal with replacing a moderate like O'Connor with a wild-card conservative like Roberts.
But in replacing the conservative Rehnquist, Bush is obligated to pick an overtly hard-core right-winger.
If he picks a moderate-conservative to replace Rehnquist, what has he accomplished? Nothing!
Do the math:
Moderate-conservative O'Connor replaced by likely conservative Roberts. Conservative Rehnquist replaced by anonymous moderate-conservative.
Net result = ZERO CHANGE in the USSC!
And that would be intolerable.
8 - Dave Nalle
The problem is that the wrong justices are leaving. No one in their right mind wants to get rid of O'Connor, and no one conservative wants to lose Rhenquist. They're not the problem. Replacing them with justices who are as conservative or more conservative isn't progress, it's just going to make the court as divided or more so. What we need is to find a way to get Ginsberg or Stevens out of there and replace them with a nice moderate.
Dave
9 - Harry Forbes
An excellent post, Drew. I'll keep it in mind and refer to it as all this posturing and theatre progresses in DC.
10 - Bob A. Booey
I agree, good choice by Bush.
RJ's right. Bush is taking this imperial presidency thing to the end and saving all his remaining, dwindling political capital to get another staunch conservative to replace Rehnquist. They've already been selling Roberts as a moderate rather than a staunch conservative and they'll go further right to replace Rehnquist, perhaps one of the very conservative female judges that was discussed before Roberts was named or someone like Luttig.
Roberts will likely vote against Roe, which will have lots of consequences in terms of precedent as well as on the ground in people's lives. See my more detailed comments on the Senator Al Barger's ridiculous post on this topic.
I think Bush is thinking legacy right now rather than politics since he doesn't have an election to win or any vested family interest in the 2008 election -- Jeb's out and done nationally due to his brother's excesses and uninterested in fighting uphill. Overturning Roe could be the spark that turns the tide for Democrats in future elections -- I already think that the 2008 White House is the Dems' to lose for various reasons, but that would give added momentum to a lasting Dem comeback. Unfortunately, it would likely come at the cost of abortion rights, which would be unlikely to be restored for at least a decade or more even with Democrats in power due to the makeup of the Court and usual patterns of allowing challenges. Anyone who reveres the Court and its traditions should probably worry about Roe being overturned as well -- it would mark a new low point in Court legitimacy and in public backlash against Court rulings.
It's no secret why the establishment conservative candidate, Frist, is already moving toward the center and bucking the President on issues like stem cell research. He knows there's a general consensus brewing that opposes Bush on social issues and the war and he's trying to protect himself against the backlash while maintaining his conservative bona fides for the primaries. Frist's stem cell move was necessary both politically and as policy, by the way, and is a brilliant move that will pay off big if he can make it through the primaries without being out-flanked on the Right. I don't think Brownback or anyone else on the Right can be taken seriously to challenge Frist, and I think the stem cell move was the best move he's made yet to show Hillary, McCain and the gang that he's serious about being the next President. Embryonic stem cell research isn't something that will cost him the conservative base, it's scientifically necessary since the horrible Bush compromise on stem cells left no usable lines, and it's something that gives him credibility as a doctor looking to help cure diseases. It also gained him respect from some of the big shakers in the party and definitely helps him for 08 more than it hurts him, especially if Bush backs down and signs the bill rather than taking on the world and vetoing it.
Anyone who thought there was no difference between Bush and Gore and Bush and Kerry was very wrong. I stand by my Nader vote, but the Bush administration has bulled through with its agenda like nobody's business.
That is all.
11 - Bob A. Booey
To be clear, I voted Nader in 2000, Kerry in 2004.
That is all.