Intresting.

May 24, 2005 10:16 AM

The Nuclear Option has been avoided.A handfull of senators have reached an agreement killing the nuclear option, and limiting the future Filibuster to "extraordinary circumstances".
posted by delmoi (79 comments total)

Cloture has been invoked in the debate over Priscilla Owen.
posted by MrMoonPie at 10:26 AM on May 24, 2005

Fuck. Well, Owen's in.
posted by klangklangston at 10:28 AM on May 24, 2005

The Democrats are moral cowards. Move along, citizen.
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:03 AM on May 24, 2005

...and James Dobson and his "Focus on the Family" goons are pissed!

"This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats." . . . "We share the disappointment, outrage and sense of abandonment felt by millions of conservative Americans who helped put Republicans in power last November. I am certain that these voters will remember both Democrats and Republicans who betrayed their trust."

Well... let's hope that they ditch the Republicans and form "God's Party" in the next election!
posted by insomnia_lj at 11:03 AM on May 24, 2005

insomnia_lj, that's positively mind-boggling. More proof that I am not even living in the same dimension as these people...
posted by onanon at 11:05 AM on May 24, 2005

Applying game theory, which side won?

I say this was only a temporary postponement of an inevitable showdown.
posted by nofundy at 11:06 AM on May 24, 2005

So far Republicans seem to be more pissed off than Democrats about this outcome, so I'm calling it for the Dems. Sucks about Owen, though, she's a nut case.

But yeah, let's see what happens when some supreme court nominations come along....
posted by gurple at 11:08 AM on May 24, 2005

Given that the Democrats have only 44 seats in the Senate, and had only 49 votes in the last straw polls before the deal, this is about as good a deal as they could have gotten under the circumstances. It's more a victory for the moderates on both parties than it is for the more extreme members of either party. It's a loss for the extreme right, though, because they had the majority.

I think this supports my theory that the Terri Schivo situation was the high water mark of the extreme right. It's also probably the end of Bill Frist's presidential ambitions.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:13 AM on May 24, 2005

Wow, bitch long enough, loud enough, and you can get your way, even if it goes against our constitution. Way to go, pussies.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:18 AM on May 24, 2005

"extraordinary circumstances" - code for a vacant SCOUS seat...

Give the dems some credit - they have their eyes on the big money.
posted by wfrgms at 11:20 AM on May 24, 2005

Well... let's hope that they ditch the Republicans and form "God's Party" in the next election!

The Constitution Party already seems tailor-made for them.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:20 AM on May 24, 2005

Good.
posted by c13 at 11:22 AM on May 24, 2005

To me, this seems not too terrible. Yes, these 3 judges are *horrible*, but not End Of The Republic Horrible. If some jackass like one of these goons got onto SCOTUS, though, it *might* be End Of The Republic Horrible. Better to hold ones nose for three stinkers and still be able to prevent a huge ass-fucking to the Constitution.

The fact that the Republicans come off looking silly is good, too.
posted by absalom at 11:25 AM on May 24, 2005

It's also probably the end of Bill Frist's presidential ambitions.

Bingo. Alex, the Dems may lack spines, but the GOP is going to be the big loser here- the Far Right, who currently control power within the party, are facing increasing resistance from the more moderate members, who make up a larger portion of their constituency. Cooler heads among them are realizing that they're not going to be in power forever, and that karma is a bitch.
posted by mkultra at 11:26 AM on May 24, 2005

Applying game theory, which side won?

The Republicans. They get to vote in Bush's extremist judges, and if the Dems ever fillibuster, they'll all cry "this isn't an extreme circumstance!"

Dobson and his cronies are just too stupid to realize they've won.
posted by eustacescrubb at 11:26 AM on May 24, 2005

USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll

"President Bush's approval ratings for handling the economy, Iraq and Social Security have fallen to the lowest levels of his White House tenure, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday.....

Bush's overall approval rating was 46%, down 4 percentage points since early May but higher than the 45% low in March. On specific issues, 40% approved of his handling of Iraq and the economy, 33% of his handling of Social Security....

Satisfaction with congressional Republicans also has sagged. By 47%-36%, those polled say the country would be better off if Democrats controlled Congress. That's the best showing for Democrats since the GOP won control of both houses of Congress in 1994." [USA Today | May 24, 2005]

posted by ericb at 11:29 AM on May 24, 2005

I've seen a lot of bashing on Democrats for this compromise, but I wonder what one can realistically expect? Who knows how the power games really work, unless you've served/worked in the Senate? This may very well be a big move forward for the Democrats, since anything that stops the far right's momentum, even a little, has to be good.

But I won't bash: the Democrats are the minority party, not uniformly stupid (at least, not any more or less stupid than any other politicians), and I think in large part have been blindsided in the last few years by their own good sense and decency--who in their right minds would have thought, a few years ago, that hate speech barely cloaked in obviously hypocritical religious rhetoric would fly with millions and millions of people, allowing this huge power grab??

It's an unreasonable thing to have happened, therefore it understandably could have been unreasonable to expect. I'm an independent, but just find it hard to believe that the Democratic party suddenly became filled with idiots--I think they're just reeling from the reality of what's happened, like many of us are. (I still think I'm living in the Twilight Zone most days....I just didn't think we could get this stupid....)
posted by LooseFilter at 11:32 AM on May 24, 2005

find it hard to believe that the Democratic party suddenly became filled with idiots

No, it slowly happened over the course of the last 16-20 years.
posted by eustacescrubb at 11:34 AM on May 24, 2005

Eustacescrubb nails it. The Democrats managed to give up the filibuster, and Frist only gave up three nominees. (Maybe. See the record of GOP deals, keeping thereof.)

When the next nominee comes along, the Democrats will say "Extreme Circumstance." The GOP will say "No." Then, one of two things happens.

1) The seven DINOS hold up their end of the bargain. Dems lose.

2) The seven DINOS don't. Then Frist pulls the nuclear option, with the argument that the Democrats had made a deal, then broke it. Dems lose.

So, Frist manages to get rid of the Democratic filibuster, without having to invoke the Nuclear Option. If I were him, I'd be dancing in the aisle.

Ried won just about every battle -- then, in the end, he lost the war, betrayed by seven "moderate" democrats who gave Frist everything, all in the name of "preserving comity."

There are a bunch of people trying to spin this as a win, because Frist didn't get everything. Hardly. He gets revotes on at least three nominees that were already rejected, the right wing is all fired up now to put huge pressure on what remains of the GOP moderates, pushing the party even further to the right, and Bush gets a free ride on nominees for the rest of his term -- and he didn't break a single rule. This is almost a Palpatine level of win -- rather than stealing power, he just let the Senate hand it over.

If Frist, I mean, Rove was Palpatine, then Ried is Yoda -- fought, but never saw the real threat. He'd better make plans on moving to Dagobah for the next couple of decades, given the amount of influence he'll have on things for the rest of this Congress.

Hell, I expect to hear about Supreme Court retirements soon -- the road is clear for Chief Justice Scalia and Justice Starr.

As to the Right Winger screaming. Of course they are. That's what gives them power. "Lo, looked how those evil Democrats and RINOS have betrayed us! We're only getting 97% of the pie, when God has ordained that we should get 100%. We must rise up and stamp out the Commie French-Loving Gay Evolutionist Traitors. Hail Bush!"

The more I look at it, the more disastrous it shows itself to be. The Democrats got three nominees (until Bush re-re-nominates them,) and lost everything else, including the election issue. Bush gets his judges -- and he gets his legislation passed. The power grab continues, and the Democrats have made themselves irrelevant.

Ried & Co. might as well not bother showing up to the Senate anymore. They haven't got any voice -- and they given up any reason to complain about it, because they agreed to be silenced.

Fuck. Rove couldn't have played this better.
posted by eriko at 11:47 AM on May 24, 2005

but not End Of The Republic Horrible

I keep hearing this after EVERY. SINGLE. POST.

Nickel, dime, nickel, dime.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:50 AM on May 24, 2005

but not End Of The Republic Horrible

Hold me like you did by the lake on Naboo.
posted by eatitlive at 12:00 PM on May 24, 2005

"When the next nominee comes along, the Democrats will say "Extreme Circumstance." The GOP will say "No."...

...and make their party look like jackasses in the process.

Really, the battle isn't about placing a handful of judges, as they will make up only a very small minority of a much larger pool of judges out there. The real battle is for control of Congress going into the next election. If the Democrats allow an up-down vote on several candidates, but fillibuster others, they'll come off as the honorable party in the deal, especially when the public finds out that the remaining candidates really are wack-jobs.

A recent poll indicates that 47 percent of all Americans feel that the country would be better off if Democrats were in control of Congress, as compared with 36 percent for the Republicans. A majority also favor the fillibuster... they don't trust the Republicans, because they believe that the Republicans will lie, cheat, and drag the Constitution through the mud in order to get what they want.

All this whole fiasco has done so far is confirm this belief. Given that Iraq and Afghanistan aren't going away, I think it's safe to say that things aren't looking very good for the next congressional election. Expect those Republicans who are up for reelection to back away from the Bush agenda. (They're already starting to do this on the stem cell issue...)
posted by insomnia_lj at 12:18 PM on May 24, 2005

I'm not really sure what to think about this agreement yet but it says something that the right (Dobson and such) considers any compromise as a bitter defeat. They are really not going to be happy until they have compleat and total control of this country. Their outraged reaction to this is the scariest part of this whole deal to me.
posted by octothorpe at 12:19 PM on May 24, 2005

I don't know, I see Democrat loss, here.

Here's why:

before the democrat fillibuster, fillibusting wasn't the issue. Those justices were. Now, the republicans get one of those justices in exchange for a limitation on filibusting that the Republicans will ignore when they want to filibuster (which they have a heft record of doing, don't forget) and which the Democrats will stupidly adhere to.

So the Republicans get one of their justices, will likely put the other 3 in regardless, and the democrats get to shut up and have the playing field unleveled in in the republicans favor... again. whee!
posted by shmegegge at 12:30 PM on May 24, 2005

I might be missing something here. I don't understand what the Democrats really got out of this compromise. So they are allowing three candidates a vote. That's a win for the Republicans right? As for the other two, well, they are still subject to the filibuster...just like before. What has changed? What did the Democrats gain?
posted by state fxn at 12:36 PM on May 24, 2005

I don't understand what the Democrats really got out of this compromise.

The Republicans agree to only give the Democrats charley horses and hang them by their underwear in their lockers, and the Democrats are now allowed to voluntarily give up their lunch money rather than having Republicans steal it.
posted by eustacescrubb at 12:49 PM on May 24, 2005

To those who don't understand what the Dems got out of this little agreement, it's simple: The Filibuster. Had things gone diferently between the Gang of 14, this afternoon the constitutional/nuclear option would have been executed and THERE WOULD BE NO MORE FILIBUSTER. The Dems would have lost completely, and the minority party would have been left wholly without a voice. The point is that the Democrats had everything to lose here, and it was so easy for them to lose it, but they managed to pull it out.
In this case, the moderate seven of each party sat down and each gave up something. The Dems gave up the nominees that they were holding, and the Reps gave up the death-grip they had on the filibuster. I would say it was a victory for neither party. It was a victory for the center, and it was a victory for sanity.
posted by Inkoate at 12:49 PM on May 24, 2005

Point of order: the "filibuster" wasn't on the chopping block, per se, but the ability to filibuster the nomination process for judicial appointments in particular. A technicality, for certain, but it's still bullshit.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:59 PM on May 24, 2005

In chess, an inferior player can sometimes force the better one to a draw. Although not recorded as a win, the draw is a relative victory.

The Democrats almost lost all 5 seats and America almost lost the filibuster. They fought the majority party to a draw. That's victory.
posted by callmejay at 12:59 PM on May 24, 2005

"A good compromise leaves everybody mad."
- Bill Watterson (via Calvin)
posted by es_de_bah at 1:07 PM on May 24, 2005

Hey. President Bush won the election. The Democrats lost. They're still lost. The Left has lost. The Republic and sanity is winning. Stop whining about your fantasies of fascism.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:21 PM on May 24, 2005

Surely I can't be the only one thinking that the term "Nuclear Option" is icky, especially when applied to the legislature of this nation. The connotations are nightmarish: we are willing to commit complete decimation of our target (in this case, itself) to achieve victory.

Equally icky is all the metaphors it spawns. A Senator (whom I can no longer recall) today used the phrase "Nuclear Winter" to describe the resultant fallout from the Nuclear Option.

Myself, I hope for "Nuclear Disarmament", perhaps with the removal of the evil dictators who hold these weapons of mass distruction.
posted by Ogre Lawless at 1:22 PM on May 24, 2005

What is a ParisParamus?
posted by MrMulan at 1:26 PM on May 24, 2005

It's all stupid terminology. It's the Democrats qua intellectually bankrupt.

Why did the Democrats, after 214 years, start using a parliamentary maneuver to block judicial nominations? It's one thing to complain about a tactic; it's an entirely different thing to lie and claim your opponent started something, when in fact you did.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:28 PM on May 24, 2005

"Remove MrMulan as a contact

Contacts: This user doesn't link to any other MetaFilter members. 1 MetaFilter user(s) link to this user.
View contacts and contributions from contacts "
posted by ParisParamus at 1:32 PM on May 24, 2005

I think most of the angry left are forgetting the lowly position they're really in due to pathetic performances in the last few elections. Rush Limbaugh said it this way this morning "We control the white house, the house and the senate, and the president now has to ask the Democrats permission to appoint judges". Ha ha. Sounds ok to me.

Also, the biggest win for the Demo's is that another blow has been struck to the unity of the R's. It makes me laugh to see how bold many on the right are, when all it will take is a small loss of either the middle or far right to make it collapse.

Whenever both the extremes are as pissed as they are about this, I think it's a good sign the moderates won. Yay.
posted by belling at 1:33 PM on May 24, 2005

Belling, as a moderate, I tend to agree with you. Good observation.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:41 PM on May 24, 2005

Insomnia -- you keep watching the polls and I'll keep watching the maps on election day.
posted by esquire at 1:46 PM on May 24, 2005

One point to remember is that there's a difference between being happy with the result of clashing odious policitians; and being happy with any of the individual politicians. Taken individuallly, I find neither the Republicans or Democrats particularly savory. Biden: ick! Frist: slightly smaller ick! Byrd: BIG ICK! Delay: BIG ICK. But opposing icks can create something acceptable, and possibly good.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:46 PM on May 24, 2005

Oh, look what crawled back out of the sewage!

BTW, for the record, the deal isn't going to even last the week I gave it. Reports are that Frist intends to move cloture on William Myers, despite saying less than 24 hours ago that he would abide by the agreement. I guess Dobson beat him back into line.

Rove's gotta be pissed though -- gutting the Democrats without giving them the election issue was huge, and now Frist (like all right-wingers) won't shut up.

This, of course, proves again the stupidity of making deals with the Republicans, and maybe the DINOs will shut up and start fighting. Doubt it. They've been moving to the right for two decades, losing worse each time they do so, and they still can't figure out why they keep losing. Hell, even better, they then ask the GOP, who tells them they're too liberal, so they move further to the right....

Maybe wiping out the Democratic Party will allow a real opposition to emege. Probably not, but it has to be better than what we have now.
posted by eriko at 2:09 PM on May 24, 2005

I go along with wiping out the democratic party and starting over from square one, if they're not the democratic party anymore (and they most certainly are not in any way, shape or form if they're just emulating republicans), why keep them around and why support them?
posted by mk1gti at 2:24 PM on May 24, 2005

I think it's a good sign the moderates won. Yay

I concur.
posted by a3matrix at 2:32 PM on May 24, 2005

I liken the relationship between the Republicans and the Democrats right now as being alot like Ike and Tina Turner. Ike promises to be good and then Tina says something stupid so he's gotta go kick the shit out of her again, for her own good.

I can't wait until the Democrats get to where Tina leaves Ike and strikes out on her own and finds out that she's a superstar without him. And she doesn't get beat up anywhere near as often.
posted by fenriq at 2:38 PM on May 24, 2005

The choice of the judges shows that it was less of a win for the Democrats than it might appear.

The two judges whose nominations were effectively killed -- Myers and Saad -- are nominated to seats associated with states, California and Michigan respectively, which have two Democratic Senators each. When there's complete partisan polarity between the White House and a state's Senate delegation, a substantial degree of negotiation for the state's District Court seats and the associated Circuit Judge seats has been common. (For example, in New York, where the fact pattern applies, there's a deal where the nominations are divied up among Schumer, Hillary Clinton, George Pataki, and the White House's personal choices.)

The "extraordinary circumstances" that the deal really references thus aren't degree of opposition to abortion or affirmative action, but degree of White House stomping on Senate feet.
posted by MattD at 2:39 PM on May 24, 2005

PP: ". . .as a moderate . . ."

As the greatest lover of all time, this makes me laugh.

(Here's hoping just saying something makes it true!)
posted by absalom at 2:45 PM on May 24, 2005

The public is/was strongly behind the Dems on this issue. They should have stood their ground. All they've accomplished here is feeding the olive branch to the wood chipper.

Comity be damned when grave issues need to be argued.

What a bunch of pussies.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 2:57 PM on May 24, 2005

Why did the Democrats, after 214 years, start using a parliamentary maneuver to block judicial nominations?

Yes, the democrats clearly invented the entire concept of blocking judicial nominations. Of course, I was in a coma until last year, and I get all my news from Newsmax, Drudge, and occasionally, the back of cereal boxes.
posted by iron chef morimoto at 3:03 PM on May 24, 2005

Although I did once heard some story that Republicans during the Clinton administration would halt judicial nominations over the opposition of a single Senator, often some vile lunatic named Jesse Helms. But I'm sure he was a fictional character, meant to scare children or something..
posted by iron chef morimoto at 3:09 PM on May 24, 2005

Why did the Democrats, after 214 years, start using a parliamentary maneuver to block judicial nominations?

That doesn't appear to be the case.
posted by 27 at 3:12 PM on May 24, 2005

belling quotes Rush Limbaugh and then FreedomParamus says "as a moderate" he agrees with belling, which means that as a "moderate" he agrees with Rush, which indicates what FreedomParamus thinks a "moderate" is.

The Republic and sanity is winning.

Grammer is apparently losing, however.

With FreedomParamus, you have to read the small print.

Any resemblance between The Republic and an actual republic is conincidental and does not constitute an agreement on the part of the Republican Party to engage in or maintain an actual representative government.
posted by eustacescrubb at 3:13 PM on May 24, 2005

a sad day...we should have forced Frist to do his unconstitutional shit, and then made sure the world knew about it. These judges will be on the bench for decades and will do immeasurable harm to all of us. Plus, they were previously rejected in Committee, and never ever should have been up for any kind of vote after that.

The Senate loses, we lose, and Bush wins, because his 3 nutcases (even tho he has more in the wings) are now going to be on Appeals Courts--one step below the Supremes. Just to stop Frist is not at all a good enough reason for allowing any of these votes on these judges.
posted by amberglow at 3:51 PM on May 24, 2005

Had things gone differently between the Gang of 14, this afternoon the constitutional/nuclear option would have been executed and THERE WOULD BE NO MORE FILIBUSTER.

Newsflash: With this deal, there is no more minority filibuster.

Game it out.

Before the deal, without breaking the rules: It takes 40 to stop a nomination.

Before the deal, the GOP breaks the rules: It takes 51 votes to stop a nomination.

After the deal: 6 Republicans have to agree that there are "Extraordinary Circumstances", or they'll vote for cloture, and if not enough, the nuclear option. So, now it takes 44 Democrats, plus one independent, *plus* six of the seven deal-signing Republicans, to filibuster. 44+1+6=51.

Ergo, the filibuster as we knew it is dead. If the Democrats can muster 51 votes, they don't need to (and would be stupid to) filibuster -- they can call the vote, and vote to reject outright.

So, why filibuster? Either you have 51 votes -- in which case, you don't need to -- or you only have 40, which, by the rule, was enough to stop a nomination, but now, after this deal, isn't.

What is the difference between this and forcing Frist to break the Senate Rules? The Democrats can't point out how they were railroaded, how the 'thugs broke the rules, etc. They've now *agreed* that you need 51 votes to stop a nomination.

Thus, they've given up the filibuster for three judges. This isn't a good deal. This isn't even a bad deal. This is worse than no deal and the GOP breaking the rules, because the Democrats lost everything they were going to lose with the Nuclear Option, plus the high ground to complain about the GOP breaking the rules.

I sincerely hope Frist breaks the deal -- but I suspect Rove has called, vice grips and blowtorch in hand, to explain that one does not make such decisions without Rove's approval.
posted by eriko at 3:53 PM on May 24, 2005

The Democrats almost lost all 5 seats and America almost lost the filibuster. They fought the majority party to a draw. That's victory.

Sorry, no.

Don't you know what this was? This was a test. The Republicans were testing to see how much fire they would draw if they threatened to end the filibuster for judicial nominees--the sole remaining power for minority parties, I might add. The Demos spent $10+ million on an ad campaign that fell on deaf ears. Conclusion? Americans don't give a shit.

So, what did the Republicans gain? They got their nominee, plus the ability to "neener-neener" the Demos for their "flip-flopping" (to paraphrase one Texas Senator: "First they opposed it, now they say 'never mind!'). Plus they look like real reasonable guys, all willing to compromise with their adversaries. What princes.

But most importantly, they know the next time this comes up, when some NeoCon asswipe is tapped to fill a Supreme Court position, they can once again raise this issue, and know that the American people won't raise a finger to stop them. The judicial nominee filibuster is doomed, on the chopping block. This was just a stay of execution. I can't believe anyone thinks they won't do the same damned thing the next time.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:55 PM on May 24, 2005

The public is/was strongly behind the Dems on this issue. They should have stood their ground. All they've accomplished here is feeding the olive branch to the wood chipper.

I agree. I wanted to see just how far the Republicans will go. If they weren't able to push through the nuclear option, then the Democrats have done something to be proud of. If they had, I want to see the public backlash against them. That would have given me some degree of satisfaction.
posted by state fxn at 4:17 PM on May 24, 2005

and you can't trust any of those 14 anyway--one call to Lieberman saying "we'll save that sub base if you approve all the nominees" or to any of them promising anything they need will kill it. One side is holding all the chips.
posted by amberglow at 4:26 PM on May 24, 2005

I haven't understood what exactly the nuclear option is. I've read that it takes 67 votes to make a change in the senate rules, so how could the republicans change them with only a simple majority?
posted by cameldrv at 4:28 PM on May 24, 2005

As the saying goes:

‘The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.’

I think that pretty much says it all for democracy and freedom in this country.

Whatever the reason why, the feeling of futility in 'bucking the system', compulsive shopaholicism, 'I don't care' or whatever, civic responsibility and participation is the heartbeat that makes a democracy survive and thrive.
When people stop caring, when they refuse to take back their corrupted government, then their government becomes a tyranny and exercises the actions it is taking today and will continue to take. Those who agree with those in power now will be tomorrow's far-left liberals.
Film at 11 . . .
posted by mk1gti at 4:32 PM on May 24, 2005

camel: ... At issue is a seldom-used, complicated and highly controversial parliamentary maneuver in which Republicans could seek a ruling from the chamber's presiding officer, presumably Vice President Cheney, that filibusters against judicial nominees are unconstitutional. Under this procedure, it would take only a simple majority or 51 votes to uphold the ruling -- far easier for the 55-member GOP majority to get than the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster or the 67 votes needed to change the rules under normal procedures.

It would then take only 51 votes to confirm a nominee, ensuring approval of most if not all of Bush's choices. ...
posted by amberglow at 4:36 PM on May 24, 2005

Why did the Democrats, after 214 years, start using a parliamentary maneuver to block judicial nominations? It's one thing to complain about a tactic; it's an entirely different thing to lie and claim your opponent started something, when in fact you did.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:28 PM PST on May 24 [!]

Never heard of blue slips or Rule IV? Never heard of Tait or Lyons? Don't remember the whole shutting down the government thing? Do you really think the Dems invented parliamentary moves and partisan politics -- just recently -- after 214 years, and after a couple hundred filibusters? What the Dems were doing here was fair play especially considering the Republican moves against minority power; what the Repubs were doing was defiling the Constitution to get their way.

Somehow I bet you know all this, and you just don't even think there's any point in caring anymore, because your side has power, and should get whatever it wants (including even more power). So you exult in not even having to make a coherent, honest argument. Which really makes you something of a jackass troll.

Hey. President Bush won the election. The Democrats lost. They're still lost. The Left has lost. The Republic and sanity is winning. Stop whining about your fantasies of fascism.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:21 PM PST on May 24

Whose fantasies of fascism are you talking about, here?
posted by fleacircus at 4:40 PM on May 24, 2005

WaPo today: ...There are grounds to worry that the federal judiciary will be dominated at the end of the Bush years by a certain style of conservative -- Janice Rogers Brown is representative -- ready to roll back the New Deal jurisprudence of the last 70 years. Many who buy this legal approach preach that federal rules on wages and hours, environmental and business regulation, should be overturned by courts that would use 19th-century standards to void Washington's capacity to create rational standards for a complex 21st-century economy. Stopping such a judicial takeover would justify filibusters. ...
posted by amberglow at 4:47 PM on May 24, 2005

"...I think it's a good sign the moderates won. Yay."

I must have forgotten how tripping over yourself to get on TV = moderate.
posted by TetrisKid at 4:56 PM on May 24, 2005

"What is a ParisParamus?"

A ParisParamus is an Arab-hating Zionist who, when he's not foaming at the mouth, works as an ambulance chaser.

His resume claims that he is an expert on technology and the Internet, but his previous portfolio sites, lostsockland.com and lawsandfound.com, highlight his distinct inability to successfully build his own site, even when using "build your own site" tools.

He's not stupid. He's just a fool... which is arguably worse.
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:11 PM on May 24, 2005

Frist is fighting back now? -- ...
"We have the constitutional option still on the table and I will take them to the floor. I will get this tradition restored. I will not compromise that principle period. I think the judicial principle is advice and consent. The only way I can figure out what's going to happen on the other side is to be direct. Extraordinary definition is up to each individual as I can best figure it. If this results in reckless filibusters the constitutional option will be used." ...
posted by amberglow at 5:22 PM on May 24, 2005

"extraordinary circumstances"

Interpretation: Fillibuster to be used only when advantageous to the majority and not a minority, which completely defeats the purpose of the fillibuster.
posted by ZachsMind at 5:24 PM on May 24, 2005

"President Bush's approval ratings for handling the economy, Iraq and Social Security have fallen to the lowest levels of his White House tenure..."
So, "terrorist" "attack" now , what, 3 to 1 odds in favor?
posted by Smedleyman at 5:30 PM on May 24, 2005

Liberal Oasis:
The Corporate Conservatives Win
And Other Observations On A Sorry Deal

Smedley, if we have an attack now, here, it'll be proof we're no safer, but God forbid--they'll do martial law for sure. Kiss this whole country bye.
posted by amberglow at 6:27 PM on May 24, 2005

So ... if the Republicans had tried to ban the judicial filibuster, couldn't the Democrats have filibustered to stop it?

And what is the "Constitutional Option?" Certainly not a constitutional amendment?

I think the Democrats and moderates took a loss here, but a small loss in order to prevent [or delay] a potentially great loss. I can understand this without being happy about it.
posted by kanewai at 6:49 PM on May 24, 2005

But they've accomplished nothing, kanewai. Nothing. The nominee gets a free pass. At best, they've brought the issue to the people, so the next time around everyone won't be scratching their heads saying "fili-what?" Instead, they'll be scratching their heads saying, "I thought they already resolved this. Why are the democrats bringing all this up again?"

Do you really think, when it comes time to replace a Supreme Court justice and the Democrats again threaten filibuster, that the Republicans are going to say, "Oh well, guess we have to deal with it. Fair is fair... we did have a gentleman's agreement all those months back." Fuck no!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:45 PM on May 24, 2005

what CD said. And Frist is now saying he's going to put Myers (not one of the 3) up for an up-or-down vote anyway.
posted by amberglow at 7:50 PM on May 24, 2005

editorial cartoon from Seattle
posted by amberglow at 8:07 PM on May 24, 2005

Yeah, that cartoon pretty much sums it up: Democrats = gutless wonders . . . I wish they had forced them into *using* that 'nuclear option' so they would just let the cat out of the bag so we can start on putting a real, representative form of government together for this country. Neither party represents it's citizens now . . .
posted by mk1gti at 8:55 PM on May 24, 2005

> Kiss this whole country bye.

They keep saying that but they never leave. Enough with the goodbyes already, go on and make a clean break of it.
posted by jfuller at 4:29 AM on May 25, 2005

NYT today: Many Republicans Are Already Eager to Challenge Agreement on Filibusters
posted by amberglow at 5:43 AM on May 25, 2005

Enough with the goodbyes already, go on and make a clean break of it.

It's not exactly easy, you know. For Canada, it can take a couple of years between the time you take your test to when the oath is administered. Plus you need to have several thousand dollars saved up to prove you're not going to be a burden on the system.

/future Canuck
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:58 AM on May 25, 2005

jfuller
I'm all packed and ready to go, how about funding my exit?
posted by mk1gti at 7:23 AM on May 25, 2005

and Owen is in--a 56-43 vote, meaning that the 7 GOP "moderates" voted for her. What kind of compromise was this again?

see my previous post on her for more on her special brand of judicial activism.
posted by amberglow at 2:56 PM on May 25, 2005

> It's not exactly easy, you know. For Canada, it can take a couple of years between the
> time you take your test to when the oath is administered. Plus you need to have several
> thousand dollars saved up to prove you're not going to be a burden on the system.

Excuses, excuses. Lack of funds doesn't stop our Central American friends from treking north in their hundred thousands, why should it stop you? Answer, they want into the US a lot worse than you dilettante refugees want out. Even the previous itty bitty human tide of northward-trending draft dodgers had a greater sense of urgency:

Dear Uncle Sam,
It's cold as Hell in Moose Jaw
And the natives don't make coffee worth a damn.
And they think my accent's funny
and I don't have any money,
but I'd rather be in Hell than Viet Nam.

- ta,
posted by jfuller at 5:53 PM on May 25, 2005

Oh, I get it. You're an idiot. See, I thought I was talking to a non-idiot, but in fact I was talking with an imbecile! How embarassing.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:58 PM on May 26, 2005

Senate Confirms Janice Rogers Brown--56-43
posted by amberglow at 3:10 PM on June 8, 2005