Not one nose!
Lots of members of the Coalition of the Freaking Out, or whatever the opposite of “Chillin’” is, are pointing to the filibuster of John Bolton as somehow being the fault of the compromise on judicial filibusters made the other day. This makes very little sense–are we to believe that if the Senate changed the rules on judicial filibusters, somehow Democrats wouldn’t have filibustered Bolton? That just makes more sense. The Bolton filibuster might have been a rebuke for anyone who thought the compromise was some sort of Senatorial panacea, but no one was claiming that (except maybe McCain).
Some of these same CotFO members (Ok, just one at the moment) are continuing their boycott of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, despite the fact that judges are starting to go through. Captain Ed is looking for a logo. Here is my humble contribution.
Too subtle?
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. To comment, please register. No profanity, please. Non-family-friendly words will be changed to amusing euphemisms as suits the author.
May 27th, 2005 at 8:49 am
Actually, that’s pretty funny. Thanks for a good laugh!
Judges? So far, we’ve seen *one*. We may get two more after the recess, if the Democrats don’t renege on Janice Rogers Brown. After that, we’ll see a return to a de facto supermajority requirement for judicial appointments that defies the Constitution and over two hundred years of practice, a rule (according to Barbara Boxer) that got applied without the amendment process it requires. The Senate cannot unilaterally change Contitutional requirements for appointments — it does not supercede the Executive.
Still, that’s a pretty funny logo, and a good point, even if I disagree with you.
May 27th, 2005 at 9:01 am
I’m glad to see that jokes can still be taken in the current climate.
But like you said, we get three judges, and then things to back to the way they were Sunday. Yes, that means the Democrats can filibuster–but it also means the Nuclear Option is back on the table. So, we’re back to the status quo, but with 3 more judges than we had before. That means we’re winning.
May 27th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
And having failed to defend the Constitution once out of expediency, you expect the GOP to rise to the occasion later on under current leadership … because of their track record so far?
No, that ship has likely sailed. The compromise they crafted granted a political legitimacy t0 the Democrats’ supermajority argument that they didn’t have before. There will be future filibusters, and unless the GOP gets serious about leadership, all we will get from them is more pleas to elect a larger majority in the Senate. It will be akin to buying a Cadillac for your dog once you discover he can’t drive a Dodge Neo.
May 27th, 2005 at 1:41 pm
I agree with you 100%. When I read Capt. Ed’s post today I had a similar reaction (http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/42). Happily you were able to get some response. I really do not see where his doom and gloom is coming from, and where we lost the constitution this week.
Maybe it comes from years of being tired of overblown, doom and gloom rhetoric from the left? The sky did not fall Monday. Yes, we got one judge more than we had and the dems went out on a limb. They started already to saw it off. Why? If you followed my posts I linked to Daily KOS and Democrat Underground where the liberal base was livid and heading to the Green’s. At this stage the dems can either keep the liberals from going to the Green’s and lose the moderates or vise versa. They cannot keep both now. One wants them to honor their agreement and the other wants it junked.
May 27th, 2005 at 3:01 pm
well that is the silver lining, the radical base of the Dems is just as if not more livid, LOL, if the Dems are trying to cause a rift in the Republicans, they’ve also done it to themselves……..
May 27th, 2005 at 3:22 pm
Those who don’t see a problem with the Bolton filibuster since he isn’t nominated for a judgeship are missing what the original argument was about. Allowing a minority of senators to change the requirement of advise and consent from an simple majority to a super-majority is clearly unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly states a couple instances which require a supermajority (treaties, impeachment and changes to the Constitution). If the senators (Republican or Democrat) want to change the Constitution to require a greater than 51% approval there is a process to modify it. Silly procedural stuff like filibusters should be reserved for debating legislation.
May 27th, 2005 at 4:27 pm
Ed– What you’re saying is true only if you believe two things:
1) The means take precendence over the ends.
2) Graham, DeWine, et. al. believe the same things about the MOU that you do.
I don’t buy either of those. First, I don’t care about the filibuster (the means). I care about the effects of the filibuster, but not the filibuster itself. If the filibuster stops Priscilla Owens from being a appointed (the ends), than I care about that. But it hasn’t so far. If all of Bush’s other nominees never get a vote, I’ll care about that too. But I don’t expect that to happen–for reasons I’ll get into. But my concern has always been what happens to the judges, not what happens to the filibuster rule.
Second, your statement that the MOU “granted a political legitimacy to the Democrats’ supermajority argument that they didn’t have before” is only true if 6 of the 7 Republicans who signed on believe the same thing. From their statements, it’s pretty clear that that is not the case. They don’t think it legitimized it; they, in fact, think it delegitmized it, relegating the filibuster to Abe Fortas-style extreme circumstances. Obviously, some Democrats will agree with your interpretation (which should give you pause), but that doesn’t really matter, as only two Republicans of the seven are needed to throw the MOU to the wind.
I can’t emphasize this enough–look at what people do, not what they say. So far the only thing that’s been done is to make Priscilla Owens a federal appellate judge.
LargeBill– No, you’re wrong. The Senate has the right to make its own internal rules–they’ve been changed before and can be changed again, or not changed at all. It’s up to the senators. The filibuster is not the “original argument,” the original argument is that these Judges need an up or down vote. So far, so good.
May 27th, 2005 at 5:47 pm
That’s a false premise. States can make their own laws as well. However, states can’t make laws which are unconstitutional just as the Senate can not make rules which are extra-constitutional.
May 27th, 2005 at 9:41 pm
Sorry, Jim, Captain Ed is not only right on this one, he’s actually a softee. What should happen is that the Seven Dwarves should lose the right to put R after their names: throw them out of the party now.
“But we’d lose control of the Senate…” So what. As was just proven with brutal clarity, we don’t have it now. However, NOW the Republicans are porttrayed as having complete control and being “in charge.” I assure you that in 06 and especially 08 the Democratic theme will be “we let them run the country and look what we got….”
May 27th, 2005 at 10:20 pm
“but it also means the Nuclear Option is back on the table. ”
Tim, five of the Republican gang of seven–McCain, Warner, Chafee, Snowe and Collins–don’t want the “Nuclear Option” instituted, period; it would’ve been a threat to the Republic and all that. Why would they all the sudden change their minds, and votes, on that?
May 27th, 2005 at 10:58 pm
I love the Logo… you’re wrong, but it’s a great graphical execution of your point.
Before the ‘compromise’ was reached, the Senate was going to change it’s rules through simple majority, and then ALL the judges would have gotten an up or down vote; that is unless Snowe or McCain et al would have voted against cloture, keeping the debate going. After the ‘compromise’, we get three judges granted an up or down vote, two thrown overboard, and the rest in Limbo.
I cannot see how you think that this step backwards could be seen as progress. The only way we would have had a continued logjam is if you think that six or seven Republican Senators would have voted against the rule change… and that is surely possible. Naturally, that would have exposed them to the voters in an unflattering light, possible compromising their personal political futures.That’s why I personally think that the ‘compromise’ was done as a means of keeping those Republicans from having to make that vote.
The Republicans in that ‘compromise’ decided that cutting a deal with some Democrat Senators would be preferable to following the wishes of the Republican leadership …you just can’t expect the Party to enjoy that… nor can you expect the party members to reward that with their monies. That is why it is a normal and honorable reason to withhold campaign funds from those specific Senators, and to lobby for others to do the same.
As for cutting off our noses? More like shaving off our stubble. We need to use our nose; beards are optional, and need to be groomed on a regular basis, lest they obscure the whole face.
Mr. Michael
May 31st, 2005 at 4:00 am
I think the “Coalition of the Illin” is the oppossite of the COTC.
D.GOOCH
May 31st, 2005 at 10:31 pm
five of the Republican gang of seven–McCain, Warner, Chafee, Snowe and Collins–don’t want the “Nuclear Option” instituted, period
But, as I noted in another more recent post, we only need two. The other five can do whatever they like. But beyond that, Sen. Cornyn says that 4 of them (DeWine, Graham, McCain and Warner, I think) are ready to make things happen if the Democrats violate what he calls “The Owen Standard.”
Michael–Your claim that, “we would have had the votes, if 7 senators hadn’t voted the way they did” is a little odd.