Jump to navigation
One Compromise, One Politician's Career On The Line
R. Alex Whitlock
I've been meaning to post on the whole filibuster issue for a little while now, but I'm apparently too late:
These officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the agreement would clear the way for yes-or-no votes on some of Bush's nominees, but make no guarantee.
Under the agreement, Democrats would pledge not to filibuster any of Bush's future appeals court or Supreme Court nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances."
For their part, Republicans agreed not to support an attempt to strip Democrats of their right to block votes.
One of three things is going to happen:
- President Bush is going to get all of the nominees presently under consideration confirmed.
- Democrats will decide that one of the candidates that they already knew was under consideration qualified as an "extraordinary circumstance" and Majority Leader Frist will act decisively and quash the filibuster.
- Democrats will will decide that one of the candidates that they already knew was under consideration qualified as an "extraordinary circumstance" and Majority Leader Frist will resume discussions, effectively ending his chances of becoming president.
Update:
After having read the further matter, I have come to two conclusions:
- This deal sucks.
- Bill Frist has probably lost my vote in the primaries.
- I suddenly have a lot more appreciation for Tom DeLay.
Observations
See comment on Keny Chesney. :)
Politics is unusual that way.
Personally, I would have been much happier to see this one play out; the filibustering rules of the Senate as they have come to exist are just silly.
I say this because they don't require any hard decisions on the part of those who do the filibuster - you just declare "ok I filibuster this" and it's tabled indefinitely.
A far cry from the days when you used to have to stand there and keep talking, or else the filibuster was over.
I agree, I think Ted Kennedy should be forced to read from the phone book for 25 straight days if the issue is so important to him.
I must say, however, that the GOP's push to end the filibuster was very shortsighted. Legislative roadblocks are inherent Conservative protections built into the system. Removing the blocks may help in the short term, but once the shoe is on the other foot, the GOP would be howling just as loudly as the Dems are now.
I have mixed feelings on the filibuster in regards to judicial nominees. Long before the Republicans even said it (cause there was a Democratic president), I've felt that every nominee actually does deserve an up-or-down vote. At the same time, I do appreciate the filibuster itself as it comes to legislation. And I'm not entirely excited about 50+1 to get someone a lifetime judicial appointment, which is one reason I advocated before that I think there ought to be term limits for appointees. Not a particularly popular position, that.
Add an Observation
Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.
