POL: Senate reaches compromise

[Young Drachma]

CNN.COM

It's funny how clubby they all are. They get on TV and are like, patting themselves on the back, as though all the grandstanding and stuff was a show to get to what you knew would eventually happen anyway.

I mean, thanks for doing your jobs? I dunno. The moderates most certainly win out though, since it seems like they were the ones who orchestrated the deal since they had the votes to make it work or not.

But still..

[flere-imsaho]

I'll be very interested to see the details.

[kcchief19]

Interesting ... I don't see how this anything but a tremendous victory for the moderates on both sides, particularly John McCain. He's holding all the cards in this deal. Essentially it gets an up-or-down on three candidates, which will put them on the bench for sure.

It makes me wonder about McCain's future plans. I've always worked under the assumption he'll go for the Republican nomination in '08, but I think this deal somewhat works against him in that regard. The far-right of the Republican Party doesn't trust him, and this won't help. It plays to his base -- moderates and independents -- which obviously helps in a general election but won't help him much in a party primary. So is this setting the stage for an independent run?

[flere-imsaho]

So, it looks like the "compromise" is that Democrats will allow votes on Brown, Pryor & Wilson, but no guarantee was made on two others, Myers & Saad, which leads me to believe that the moderate Republicans in the compromise would allow those two to be filibustered. The other part of the compromise is that Democrats agree not to filibuster further candidates "except in extreme circumstances". However, given that Dems only filibustered 10 of Bush's 218 nominees in his first term, one could argue that this is what they do already.

So what this is, then, is a round of saving face for a lot of folks. Bush gets some of his judges, but Dems get to block a few. Filibustering isn't ruled out for the future (i.e. a Supreme Court nomination), but changing the rules to outlaw filibustering still remains an option.

Thus, on that front at least, I'm sure we're going to see the same showdown when the next Supreme Court vacancy comes up.

The real ramifications, then, have to do with the political ambitions of those involved:

Bill Frist: Better for him than losing the cloture vote or the rule change vote, but the hard right was pushing this fight hard, and will blame him for the failure. It dents his fundraising capabilities for a 2008 Presidential run.

Moderate Republicans: Big win. Show they've still got some importance in this Senate, just when they were looking completely marginalized.

Democrats: Decent result. They made their point, Reid especially, which was that they're not going to roll over and play dead during this session. It's still a tough year before the 2006 elections, though. And they've still let through some judges with very questionable credentials.

[st.cronin]

If McCain ever runs for President I will vote for him as many times as possible.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

If McCain ever runs for President I will vote for him as many times as possible.

You live in Madison so it won't matter, though.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You live in Madison so it won't matter, though.

Who knows where I'll be living in 2008. We're moving to Santa Fe at the end of the summer.

[MrBigglesworth]

Yuck. What exactly was the compromise? All the moderate dems did was give stuff up. This wasn't a negotiation, it was extortion, and the moderate dems went along with it. What a bunch of pansies. I bet Lieberman was prominantly involved.

[JPhillips]

This is a good deal for Dems, if for no other reason than the rightie blogs are on fire about the Republican capitulation. It is probably a good solution. Dems give up on some of the nominees but retain the right to filibuster later in "extraordinary circumstances." Repubs get three nominees and don't have to deal with the repurcussions of a successful vote, or worse an unsucsessful vote.

The two big losers are McCain and Frist. Every rightie blog I've read is going after McCain hard. He could probably win the general election, hell I'd probably vote for him, but he has no chance in a Repub. primary. I don't know when he is up for reelect, but I anticipate a far-right challenger with a lot of money from Dobson etal.

Frist is now no longer a contender for the White House. He has yet to deliver the goods on any vote and his backing is going to melt like Frosty in June. He should really consider running for the Senate agin instead of the Preidency. The real interesting saga will be if the far-righties push to get him removed as majority leader.


No one should have wanted to see this come to a crisis point. The ramifications really could have destroyed the Senate for at least the next year and half. Both sides win and both sides lose. I do agree with a lot of righties though, all this did was push the big fight until the first SCOTUS nominee.

[flere-imsaho]

McCain - I hear what you're both saying about this being bad for McCain, but I don't see it that way. The Right (the New Right) hates McCain, and this was never going to change that. Sure, he'll never win the GOP primary, but maybe he can chase his aspirations some other way. Or maybe the GOP (as in the voters) will come to their senses and get the New Right to back off. As a non-Republican, of course, I don't care what the hell they do.

The Deal & Democrats - Whether or not you think this was a good deal depends on whether or not you think the Democrats had 51 votes to override the rule change. If you think they did, then yeah, this isn't a great deal, because the Democrats could have let Frist pull the trigger and shoot himself in the head.

If you think the Democrats didn't have 51, however (I put myself in this camp), then it's not a bad deal. This wasn't about these judges, per se, it was about the next Supreme Court Justice. Reid, et. al., know that if they lose the rule change vote and a SC vacancy comes up before January 2007, the Far Right will get whomever they want. If they can push this fight off until after the 2006 elections, and can manage to pick up some seats, they'll be in a much, much better position to get Bush to nominate someone palatable for the bench.

Remember, 2nd-term Presidents in the last 2 years of their Presidency have a very, very tough time with the Senate because even the Senators in their party are considering Presidential runs (at least the most influential ones are), and view their own agenda as far more important than the President's, who, really, can't do much more for them.

[DaddyTorgo]

i don't see this as compromise. I see this as the dems caving. Letting those three judges in and doing some "only in extraordinary circumstances" thing is bull.

[Abe Sargent]

John McCain is a modern day Henry Clay. He may want the Presidency. He may be every much a great statesman as Clay, and he may be the Great Compromiser of his day, just as Clay was known. But, he will not win the party nomination becuae, at the end of the day, he has something else in common with Clay.

"Sir, I'd rather be right than President."

Henry Clay, 1850



-Anxiety

[kcchief19]

I think Frist is the biggest loser. McCain has shown him who is boss in the Senate, making a deal behind his back to get something done while appearing to reach a bi-partisan compromise.

No doubt this is about a future Supreme Court nominee. This deal would give the Democrats the chance to fillibuster anything other than a down-the-middle moderate that won't tip the scales too much.

But let's face it -- the debate over the Supreme Court isn't as much about the next justice as it is about the next Chief Justice. If Rehnquist steps down or passes away, it won't tip the court much -- if anything, if Bush is forced to choose a moderate it may move the court more toward the middle.

But who will be the next Chief Justice? Obviously rule out Ginsburg, Breyer and Stevens. I don't Souter probably has too many fans either. O'Connor would be a nice political choice, but sh'es had some health problems as well, plus she has increasingly been a swing vote for the liberal bloc of the court.

While I think Thomas has the ideology the Republicans love and would also be a great political choice, I don't family-values conservatives will be able to stomach another round of "Why is there a pubic hair on my Coke?" spectacle. I think Kennedy is the choice Democrats could live with, which is why I don't think it will be him.

Which brings us to Scalia. I would bet money he'll be the pick, especially given his close ties to Cheney. That is the fight Democrats are gearing up for. This deal will let them fillibuster to the heart's content and force a showdown over Scalia.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You live in Madison so it won't matter, though.

Unless he was going against particularly strong opposition, I'm pretty sure McCain would win Wisconsin, and he might even swing Madison. McCain is pretty well loved by progressives, and his name is forever linked to Russ Feingold, who is awfully popular in the state.

Of course, I'm pretty sure McCain has made his last bid for the Presidency. He'll be getting kind of old by '08..

[JPhillips]

kcchief: I have to disagree. I don't think there will be a fight over chief justice at all. In the end it doesn't really matter and the real fight would be over Renquist's replacement on the bench. I doubt Scalia will be the choice because of his age. Thomas most likely will be and there will be some howling and an embarassing florr fight, but he'll get confirmed with 60+ votes.

Now the replacement will be a dogfight. I can see a scenario where a deal is cut for a more moderate replacement in exchange for an easy pass on the new Chief, but the Dobson's and Bauer's of the world won't like that one bit.

On a side note, Lindsay Graham has made comments that one of the three judges that will be voted on will be defeated! There goes Graham's presidential bid.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This is a good deal for Dems, if for no other reason than the rightie blogs are on fire about the Republican capitulation.

The rightie blogs are absolutist, with him or against him types so they don't realize the good deal they got. Plus, the Republican victim model needs a scapegoat at all times. But the reason I don't think this was a good deal for Dems is that the Republicans thought that playing Calvinball was a good negotiating tactic. What's to stop them from a) pulling this same stunt again when the next judges come up and b) pulling a similar crybaby stunt some other time when they don't get their way? At some point you just have to take a principled stand, take the issue to the people, and hope that the people see things for what they are.

However, if one of these judges who will go to a vote gets voted down, then it becomes a slightly better deal for Dems. The evangelicals screaming at this deal, that it allows the liberal takeover of the courts, is hilarious. As if the 200+ judges that the Senate already confirmed for Bush are out mandating abortion for everyone and criminalizing religion.

[flere-imsaho]

In an update, Sen. Lindsay Graham mentioned to reporters that one of the three who will get an up-and-down vote likely won't be confirmed, meaning that one of those three candidates won't get support from moderate Republicans.

Chief Justice: I doubt Thomas would survive the floor fight. Thomas is exactly the kind of case the Democrats will filibuster against. Having said that, my money is on Bush to nominate either him or Scalia. If the Democrats can keep Scalia or Thomas from getting confirmed as Chief Justice, though, my money's on Kennedy as the compromise choice. The Far Right is ticked at O'Connor, even though she's a Reagan appointee, and the rest are all too moderate (or even lefty).

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Chief Justice: I doubt Thomas would survive the floor fight. Thomas is exactly the kind of case the Democrats will filibuster against. Having said that, my money is on Bush to nominate either him or Scalia.

I think it's going to be Thomas, and any disagreement the Dems have with him will be called racism. I would take Thomas as Cheif Justice as long as a moderate replaces Rehnquist.

[Arles]

I don't think Frist or McCain have much of a chance for the GOP nomination in 08. Frist has too much of a checkered voting record and is a bit of a lightening rod right now. McCain wouldn't have much of a shot of winning a primary. My guess is it will be some governor like Mitt Romney, Rudy or maybe a senator like George Allen. But I could easily see a dark-horse governor coming out of the woodwork to win as well. I also have a hard time believing a senator would get the nomination given the poor track record of winning given their voting records.

In an update, Sen. Lindsay Graham mentioned to reporters that one of the three who will get an up-and-down vote likely won't be confirmed, meaning that one of those three candidates won't get support from moderate Republicans.

That wouldn't bother me one bit. If the senate goes back to only using the filibuster in extreme cases for appellate judges and all three don't get confirmed I will be happy.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Arles

I don't think Frist or McCain have much of a chance for the GOP nomination in 08. Frist has too much of a checkered voting record and is a bit of a lightening rod right now. McCain wouldn't have much of a shot of winning a primary. My guess is it will be some governor like Mitt Romney, Rudy or maybe a senator like George Allen.

Would a southern Republican voter ever trust Mitt Romney? No matter what his true political leanings are, I can see oppo specialists tar and feathering him just for being from Massachusetts.

Same deal with Rudy--he ran a fairly liberal ship in NYC, and the conservative grassroots can be organized to stop him...

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Would a southern Republican voter ever trust Mitt Romney? No matter what his true political leanings are, I can see oppo specialists tar and feathering him just for being from Massachusetts.

Same deal with Rudy--he ran a fairly liberal ship in NYC, and the conservative grassroots can be organized to stop him...

Depends if there is a "better" viable candidate. If there isn't, I would expect many on the right to deal with Rudy or Romney with the idea of keeping the White House.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

For now a disaster averted we have.

[JPhillips]

Rudy has no chance of winning the nomination. He's pro-choice, pro-gay, lived with another woman while still married and propoably could get caught up in all of the shenanigans around Kerik. Just recently some Catholics said he shouldn't get communion.

Romney actually has a better chance, but I'd worry about him as a candidate. When he ran against Kennedy for Sen. he was way up and should have walked away with it, but his campaign was so poor that he ended up getting killed. Hell Kennedy even beat him up with "tough on crime" ads. Somewhere I did an analsis of that race when in grad school. The conclusion was that Romney was terrible in the last few months.

[digamma]

More imminent are the 2006 elections.

Of the 33 Senate seats up for grabs, 17 are held by Dems, 15 by Republicans and 1 by an Independent.

14 incumbents (from what I've read) have indicated they will seek re-election and appear safe (7 D, 7 R).

That leaves 19 races.

Five Dems have announced their retirement or may be considering retiring, but the seats appear safely blue (Maryland, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey).

Two Republicans have announced their retirement or may be considering retiring, but the seats appear safely red (Indiana, Utah).

One independent has announced his retirement, however, the major favorite is another independent.

That leaves the following eleven seats, which could be worth watching:
1. Minnesota--currently held by a Dem, who is retiring. Field could be wide open with viable third party candidates.
2. West Virginia--Byrd seems intent on running again, but he will be almost 90. If he doesn't run, I think Virginia is too conservative to keep the seat blue.
3. Wisconsin--Kohl is supposedly considering retirement. Like Minnesota, it could be wide open.
4. Michigan--Stabenow is considered vulnerable by the Republicans.
5. Florida--Nelson will likely be the Republicans top target for a pick-up.
6. Tennessee--Rumors have Frist retiring to concentrate on his run for the presidency. This gets interesting if he does that and Harold Ford runs.
7. Texas--Kay Bailey Hutchinson is rumored to want to run for governor. The Dallas mayor may have the political capital to put the seat in play for the Dems.
8. Pennsylvania--Santorum will be the Dems top target for a pick-up.
9. Montana--Incumbent R contemplating retirement. Evidently the Democratic party has run very well recently in state-wide elections. Go figure.
10. Rhode Island--Chafee may be too moderate for Republicans and could face a primary challenge. I think he's probably pretty safe, but it could be interesting.
11. Virginia--Mark Warner, current Dem gov., could make things interesting if he decides to challenge George Allen.

In the end, I don't think there will be much net change, though a few seats could swap parties. Maybe one or two seats either way, at most. And I don't think the judicial filibuster factors into the campaigns very much at all.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i don't see this as compromise. I see this as the dems caving. Letting those three judges in and doing some "only in extraordinary circumstances" thing is bull.

I think of it as the other side "caving". That said, I'm guessing that makes this more of a compromise than I think it is.

Don't get me wrong. I welcome the compromise. This brings about a vote on almost all of the nominees. Especially the ones where I felt the Democrats were being unreasonable about.

My problem is with the language that essentially commits the Republicans who joined in the agreement to vote against any "rules changes" regarding judicial filibusters until the next congress is in session in 2007. The language also says that these senators expect the President to bring potential nominees forward before nomination for some sort of approval process. That pretty well changes the expectations of the nomination process that has been place for a couple hundred years. It was also a Democrat proposal made some months back. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the text of the compromise if it had included some language condeming the Democrats tactics as an abuse of the filibuster system as Senator Nelson had stated several times.

The Dems on the other hand gave up relatively little. The extraordinary measures bit includes language that pretty much allows a judicial nominee to be filibustered because of their eye color, I mean if the extraordinary measures are determined by individual senators, then "extraordinary circumstances" really isn't a reliable means test.

In short I say the Republicans gave up long term options for a short term gain, but they also don't have to take the unpopular step of unilaterally quashing the filibuster for judicial nominees. The Democrats avoid losing their voice on Judicial nominees, while agreeing to allow votes for a handful of nominees, that they were stonewalling for little good reason. They explicitly hold out a couple of nominees that the "extraordinary circumstances" phrase won't apply to. They gave up very little. Everything they gave up they would have lost anyway, if the Republicans had gone forward with their plan.

As for the thought expressed by another poster that the Democrats are already only using the filibuster under extraordinary circumstances. I really haven't seen any evidence that shows that the justices, especially the ones now agreed to be voted on, had done anything that amounted to extraordinary circumstances. Some of the nominees just came from states that Clinton had trouble getting judges confirmed from.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Arles

Depends if there is a "better" viable candidate. If there isn't, I would expect many on the right to deal with Rudy or Romney with the idea of keeping the White House.

I was talking this over with someone on the OOTP boards (an older southern conservative) and he argued that Romney had absolutely no shot- if only because the Primaries and the apparatus are controlled by the social conservative wing of the party. Amusingly enough , he also mentioned Allen (a candidate I don't get). Romney keeps attempting to portray himself as a social conservative now- the thing is, no one in Mass believes him - he's a decent governer, but that's that.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by digamma

8. Pennsylvania--Santorum will be the Dems top target for a pick

Santorum will face a tough match-up with Casey, a pro-life moderate Democrat and son of a beloved former governor, not to mention PA being a blue state. Casey already has a sizable lead in the polls. I wouldn't be surprised if Santorum took the Frist route and retired from the Senate to run for President.

The real action, as usual and as intended, will be in the House, where there is a much better chance of a huge swing.