Reason wins out in the US senate

[billvon 3,114]

A pretty nasty showdown in the US senate was averted monday night when a group of fourteen moderate senators agreed on a compromise in the judicial-nomination morass. Some judicial nominees will get a vote, some will not, and filibusters will not be used in any but extreme circumstances - which is about the best compromise that could be expected under the circumstances.

Kudos especially to the republican senators who stood up to their party, and put the functioning of the senate ahead of the GOP. They are:

Lincoln Chafee (R-Rhode Island)
Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Mike DeWine (R-Ohio)
Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina)
John McCain (R-Arizona)
John Warner (R-Virginia)
Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)

People like these, and their democratic counterparts, are the people who actually get the work done in congress while the more vocal elements on both sides grandstand and pander to special interests. Good work.

[quade 4]

Ya know, McCain, while appearing to be a loose cannon sometimes, sure is a pretty reasonable guy at other times. I certainly would have liked to have had the opportunity to vote for him.

What is hilarious is how some of the extreme right are still bitching and moaning over this.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[TheAnvil 0]

I'm extremely disappointed. I was looking so forward to having CSPAN show democrats doing an actual filibuster.

Perhaps the 6 Republicans and RINO Lincoln Chafee will call Judge Saad and render their condolences. Or better still, come out and state why they think him unworthy of an appointment or floor vote. I'd really like to see that. McCain might do that - none of the others.

The Dims show yet again that they play for keeps and have won again. At least some of these qualified judges will get to the appellate bench, which is a good thing I guess.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Rebecca 0]

Man, I really thought they were gonna bring it.

"You got served"

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

What is hilarious is how some of the extreme right are still bitching and moaning over this.

The Republicans are the majority, and are not "extreme" anything.

They're still bitching because two judges have been sacrificed and will never receive the up-or-down vote they deserve. And the democrats have still reserved the right to filibuster any time they feel like simply to uttering the special double-dog-dare words "extraordinary circumstances". I predict it won't take long for them to decide that pretty much every Bush judicial nominee is an extraordinary circumstance.

Is denying someone their rightful vote in the Senate your idea of how democracy should work?

[billvon 3,114]

>The Republicans are the majority, and are not "extreme" anything.

Some quite definitely are. Most are not extreme, and as we've seen, at least seven are quite moderate.

>I predict it won't take long for them to decide that pretty much every
>Bush judicial nominee is an extraordinary circumstance.

I doubt it. They will reserve it for the extreme candidates. This will be an impetus for Bush to not nominate extreme candidates - which is how the system is supposed to work. Checks and balances.

>Is denying someone their rightful vote in the Senate your idea of how
>democracy should work?

Absolutely. Again, from Bob Smith (R-NH): "Don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on the circuit court ... . That is my responsibility. That is my advice and consent role, and I intend to exercise it." It was true in 1999 and is true today.

[Gawain 0]

I am of the opinion that this "deal" will not survive. McCain really sold out on this. I especially like the part of the memorandum which admonishes the President to consult with the Senate prior to nominating judicial candidates. Whatever.

I hope it's a non-starter.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[dorbie 0]

Any supreme court nominee will certainly equal an extreme case for a Democrat irrespective of who retires or who is nominated, and I expect there will be others before then, we'll be back to square one. Ask a Democrat if a specific candidate is an extreme case and they won't give you a yes or no answer, this happened over the weekend, so this commitment is bogus.

It's a power grab and a successful one, kudos to the Democrats they got away with it.

[billvon 3,114]

> Any supreme court nominee will certainly equal an extreme case for a Democrat . . .

History has shown that not to be true. Again, note that a great many nominees HAVE been voted on and approved. Actions speak louder than words.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

> Any supreme court nominee will certainly equal an extreme case for a Democrat . . .

History has shown that not to be true. Again, note that a great many nominees HAVE been voted on and approved. Actions speak louder than words.

But recall, bill, that this was specifically begun to prevent any hope of Miguel Estrada ever ascending to the Supreme Court.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

> Any supreme court nominee will certainly equal an extreme case for a Democrat . . .

History has shown that not to be true. Again, note that a great many nominees HAVE been voted on and approved. Actions speak louder than words.

I'd have to ignore a lot of action to arrive at any other conclusion, time will tell though. As for history, precedent hardly matters, despite the rhetoric what has gone before has not been a template for DNC behavior.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Definition of an Extreme Candidate: One who is Pro-Life. Thats all this is about.

[lawrocket 3]

Well, bill, it's nice to see your viewpoint of this. But, I just read what Howard Dean, head of the DNC is saying.

Apparently, this is no compromise. It was a victory for Democrats and a loss for Republicans, especially Bush.

Time will tell whether this will become scorched earth by the victors...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

This continues to be a mirror image of actions and statements from the 90s.

Fret not - the sky isn't falling. It's business as usual in Washington.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Well, bill, it's nice to see your viewpoint of this. But, I just read what Howard Dean, head of the DNC is saying.

Apparently, this is no compromise. It was a victory for Democrats and a loss for Republicans, especially Bush.

Time will tell whether this will become scorched earth by the victors...

I think it's only a temporary victory. This deal can (and will) be recinded once the Dems filibuster a well qualified candidate who is Pro-Life. Lindsey Graham has already admitted his role in this will not make him very popular in S.Carolina. I suspect John Warner is going to be feeling the heat in Virginia too.

[billvon 3,114]

>But, I just read what Howard Dean, head of the DNC is saying.

In this case, Dean is to the DNC what Frist is to the RNC. Both are extremists; I wouldn't want to see either one get everything they wanted. The moderates have (fortunately) carried the day.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>But, I just read what Howard Dean, head of the DNC is saying.

In this case, Dean is to the DNC what Frist is to the RNC. Both are extremists; I wouldn't want to see either one get everything they wanted.

Dean effectively said he just DID get his way. shouldn't you be worried?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>The Republicans are the majority, and are not "extreme" anything.

Some quite definitely are. Most are not extreme, and as we've seen, at least seven are quite moderate.

The Dems have as many, if not more, extremists on the left wing.

Just because seven Repubs compromised with the Dems, that doesn't mean that the other 48 are "extreme", or that those 7 are "moderate".

The 47 Repub Senators who weren't part of this deal, outnumber all the Dems combined.

Everyone needs to quit calling their opponents "extremists".

Quote

>I predict it won't take long for them to decide that pretty much every
>Bush judicial nominee is an extraordinary circumstance.

I doubt it. They will reserve it for the extreme candidates. This will be an impetus for Bush to not nominate extreme candidates - which is how the system is supposed to work. Checks and balances.

The Dems consider all of his nominees to be extreme. I've been hearing it for weeks on the TV and radio. When everything is extreme, the word ceases to have any meaning.

Quote

>Is denying someone their rightful vote in the Senate your idea of how
>democracy should work?

Absolutely.

Well if you think that the minority should be allowed to prevent the majority from getting anything done, then I wonder what the point is in having any elections at all.

Quote

from Bob Smith (R-NH): "That is my advice and consent role, and I intend to exercise it."

"Advise and consent" does not mean "prevent from receiving a vote".

Voting is what democracy is all about. If they don't like a candidate, they can debate, speak their mind, and try and change opinions, but ultimately each nominee deserves a vote.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

from Bob Smith (R-NH): "That is my advice and consent role, and I intend to exercise it."

"Advise and consent" does not mean "prevent from receiving a vote".

It certainly did to Bob Smith.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>But, I just read what Howard Dean, head of the DNC is saying.

In this case, Dean is to the DNC what Frist is to the RNC. Both are extremists; I wouldn't want to see either one get everything they wanted. The moderates have (fortunately) carried the day.[/replY]

What views does Frist have that you consider extreme?

• Quote

[billvon 3,114]

>The Dems consider all of his nominees to be extreme.

If that were true they would have tried to block them all. They didn't. Therefore your point is invalid. The reality is that they allowed the great majority to be approved, a point republicans very rabidly overlook.

>Well if you think that the minority should be allowed to prevent
>the majority from getting anything done, then I wonder what the
>point is in having any elections at all.

There are specific procedures in the government that require _more_ than a majority to change, since they are central to the functioning of the government. You need almost complete agreement instead of 50.1%. When you think about it, I think you will decide that you are glad this is the case. Case in point - would you be OK modifying the second amendment if the right (or wrong) 50.1% comes to power? After all, think of the children!

>"Advise and consent" does not mean "prevent from receiving a vote".

You'd have to take that up with the senator from New Hampshire. He prevented the candidate from receiving a vote - indeed, called it his duty. Surely the GOP would not be so hypocritical as to wholeheartedly support a procedure that benefits them, then claim it is anti-democratic when it does not.

>Voting is what democracy is all about.

Representing the wishes of _all_ people, not just 50.1% of the people, is what democracy is all about. It's why we have a judiciary, for example - and why we were careful to keep it independent of either other branch of government.

I am amazed that so many people are aghast that a compromise between two parties, a compromise that gets both part of what they want, has been reached. This is an example of our government _working_, people. There are actually people on this forum who would prefer to see our government come to a screeching halt as long as it made their 'enemies' (i.e. part of our government) look bad. Such hatred is better reserved for football games than the leadership of our country.

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

Definition of an Extreme Candidate: One who is Pro-Life. Thats all this is about.

Ding, ding, ding...we have a winner!

Chris

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

"Advise and consent" does not mean "prevent from receiving a vote".

It certainly did to Bob Smith.

Bob Smith is not god, so I don't know why you put so much credence in what he says. He's just as wrong as all the Dems are that want to bottle up all of the judicial nominees.

Shame on anyone who thinks that these people don't deserve a fair vote on the Senate floor.

[dorbie 0]

McCain interview by Chris Mathews;

Quote

MATTHEWS: Have the Democrats learned their lesson, that it's better to only use this thing occasionally in extraordinary circumstances?

MCCAIN: I think so. I think the Democrats realized they abused the process with the filibustering last year. And that's why we were able to make this agreement.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"Advise and consent" does not mean "prevent from receiving a vote".

It certainly did to Bob Smith.

Bob Smith is not god, so I don't know why you put so much credence in what he says.

Well, you were responding to a quote by him, though conveniently cutting out the meat of what he said, and redefined 'advise and consent' to something very different from what he meant.

If you had intended to say that he was wrong too, you could have done so very much more clearly.

So if you agree the GOP was wrong for doing it then, what incentive do you think there is for the Democrats to be the first to turn the other cheek and end this tit for tat game?

What assurance do they have that the next time around the GOP will stick to a new truce? There's none. Which is why it will continue.