Alarming News: Nobody happy

May 24, 2005

Nobody happy

Filibuster 'compromise' reactions

The deal: Senators have stated they will not filibuster except in “extraordinary circumstances.”
This is the agreement. This.

And here I was thinking that filibusters were only supposed to be used under “extraordinary circumstances” to begin with.

Paul Mirengoff at Powerline:

From my perspective, here are the two essential facts: (1) as virtually every Republican involved stressed, thr Deal makes sense for the Republicans only if the seven Democrats they worked with can be trusted to act in good faith on President Bush's current and future nominees and (2)Robert Byrd is the leader of the seven Dems.

Left

Iocaste:

So as I understand it... the Democrats promise to let the nominees go through, and the Republicans promise to let them.
Great job, guys.

Senator Russ Feingold:

This is not a good deal for the U.S. Senate or for the American people. Democrats should have stood together firmly against the bullying tactics of the Republican leadership abusing their power as they control both houses of Congress and the White House. Confirming unacceptable judicial nominations is simply a green light for the Bush administration to send more nominees who lack the judicial temperament or record to serve in these lifetime positions. I value the many traditions of the Senate, including the tradition of bipartisanship to forge consensus. I do not, however, value threatening to disregard an important Senate tradition, like occasional unlimited debate, when necessary. I respect all my colleagues very much who thought to end this playground squabble over judges, but I am disappointed in this deal.

Comments

Based on the reactions of various blogs, as well as the two Senate leaders, I think the left is less upset with this than the right. That strikes me as correct reaction though I don't think this is the "huge victory" for them that Daily Kos says it is.

But it is a victory. Six months after conservatives gushed that Bush had won a big mandate and that the Dems were on the ropes, the Republicans did not get anywhere near what they wanted despite a 10 seat majority. Add the Bolton nomination, Social Security, and discontent on the right on immigration and this has not been a good start to the second Bush term.

Posted by: Von Bek at May 24, 2005 10:41 AM

I agree with Von Bek. A good compromise from my point of view, but it's amazing that the republicans put themselves in a position where they had to compromise in the first place.

I also don't think the democrats in the deal ever wanted to filibuster these particular candidates - the deal gave them a way to save face without turning on the party.

Posted by: Alceste at May 24, 2005 10:50 AM

Dude anytime we get a story that contains the words "Republican moderate John McCain" it's a huuuuge loss for Democrats.

Posted by: Not Dawn Summers at May 24, 2005 10:58 AM

The move to eliminate the filibuster was condemnable, but the Dems should have let the filibuster die. The pendulum will swing back.

Posted by: ugarte at May 24, 2005 12:45 PM

Not Dawn-

Please explain. How is "Republican moderate John McCain" bad for Democrats?

Posted by: W.C. Varones at May 24, 2005 10:31 PM