I haven’t been following the news today. What is the filibuster compromise? Must be bad news.
Irate bloggers: Michelle Malkin (Update), Captain’s Quarters (live-blogging – Update), GOP Bloggers, Power Line, Crooks and Liars (this liberal tells the truth), Conservative Outpost, Daily Pundit, Agent Tim…
More bloggers: Three Bad Fingers (Read his bio, too.), Ramblings’ Journal, The Anchoress, Ace of Spades, Pardon My English (round-up with selected quotes and PDF copy of the “deal”), Hugh Hewitt, Scared Monkeys (another nice round-up)…
Bill Frist as Neville Chamberlain. The “peace” heard ’round the world.
The Political Teen has video here and here.
John McCain gains the spotlight just in time for his new movie! What a publicity stunt!
It’s times like this I’m glad I’m not a member of the Republican party. I am a conservative through and through.
Update: Sometimes comments get stuck in the moderation cue for unknown reasons. If you don’t see your comment or trackback, please re-submit or wait until morning when I approve it.
Mr. Reid called it a ‘lucky coincidence’ that the compromise still allows Democrats to filibuster judicial nominees in ‘extraordinary’ circumstances.Asked to give an example of such a circumstance, Mr. Reid said, “If President Bush violates the spirit of bipartisanship by nominating a conservative to the bench, that would be deal buster leading to a filibuster.”
{ 19 trackbacks }
{ 71 comments }
Horrible image, one I’m sure they’re used to lo, these past four years.
well atrios is mad, and so are the righties. sounds like in fact it was a compromise.
You know, I’ve heard that before. If both sides are unhappy, it’s a good compromise.
Amazing! Good old John McCain pulls another fast one on his Party.
La Shawn, the big problem is that the Republicans are just too darned civil. They just aren’t willing to go to the ground and wrestle in the mud and the blood and the tears like the Democrats are. How much of a majority do we have to give the Republicans before they start acting like the majority party, or is it that they spent so long in the minority, that they just don’t know how to handle it?
Bill Frist blinked first, and all I can say is: do we really think this wimp could be a President? (He’s been entertaining the thought of making a run in 2008 you know.)
yah! We backed down! The socialist party got what they wanted.
Amazing. I do not undrestand why the Republicans are so afraid of using the opportunity they have. Filibustering is a foolish concept. If a nominee is bad, vote “no”. How much simpler does it get? What a display.
This is why we’ll never be rid of many of the vulgarities that afflict this society which could be eliminated by a politician with the guts to do it. Once those who “represent” the people who would be done with these things get the chance to do so, they want to play spin the bottle with their opponents!
I’m so glad Jesus is coming back…
Moderates RULE! Sometimes compromise is a good thing. Those guys and dolls get paid to do the people’s business. Maybe now they will get back to that. I don’t know to what degree the Senate would have been disrupted by the democrats had the so-called nuclear option been deployed, but I am glad that we won’t find out. A word for the hardliners on BOTH sides: adults negotiate; children whine and pout until they get their way. Looks like the adults won.
They’ve cemented themselves out of voting for the Nuke Option–while, as far as I know, not forcing any kind of definition of the term “Extraordinary circumstances.”
GOP agrees to scuttle 2 nominations (Henry Saad and William Myers) so that 3, maybe more can get up or down votes. The fact that Saad was scuttled is disgusting. He was slandered McCarthy style by Harry Reid on the Senate floor. Reid’s actions were a clear violation of FBI and Senate policy regarding the confidential vetting process of judicial nominees. Why was a compromise made with someone so willing to break the rules? The GOP lost on this issue and bad.
The compromise did nothing to settle the real issue: the use of the filibuster in the “advise and consent” role on judicial nominees.
All this has done is give the Dems a stronger hand when the time comes for Supreme Court nominations. Rest assured that there will be a filibuster on whoever Bush nominates to the highest court unless it is a mealy-mouthed “moderate” who will sell out to revisionist review and international law (ex: O’Connor).
This is a major blow to the GOP and to Constitutionalists.
Frist and the Senate leadership are gutless. He makes me ashamed to hail from the same state. Make no bones about it. This was no compromise. This was a sellout that will pay in spades at a later date.
Hat tip Captains Quarters (www.captainsquatersblog.com)
The text of the agreement:
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.
This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.
We have agreed to the following:
Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations
A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).
B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).
Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations
A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.
B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.
We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “Advice†speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.
Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.
We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.
The worst part of this deal is that the rudderless, egomaniacal, camera-hogging John McCain will become even more of a darling of the MSM. I think I shall be sick.
“You know, I’ve heard that before. If both sides are unhappy, it’s a good compromise. ”
Though some people would whine whenever they don’t get everything they want.
Rafael,
The only whining I have heard has been from the Democrats about the impending threat of the so called “nuclear option”. What the Republicans should have done was taken a page from the Democrat’s days in the majority, and gone ahead and steamrollered the Dems right from the gitgo, instead of squandering their political momentum.
All this waiting around and posturing has done nothing but give the Republidemocrats like McCain an opportunity to show out. He loves this kind of stuff because he thinks it makes him look presidential. “Look at me, I have SAVED the Senate, I’m a uniter, not a divider, so think McCain in 2008″. So what if a few good men and women have to be tossed under the bus.
Whatever…
Headline tomorrow in the MSM: GOP Cries Uncle! For once, they will be telling the truth.
There is a story of the great Pittsburgh shortstop Honus Wagner who once returned his contract offering him $2000 per year, declaring, “I won’t play for a penny less than fifteen hundred.” I wonder if the GOP dug up Old Honus to negotiate this compromise.
Still, there’s some good news – it’s hard to see how McCain or Frist could possibly win the GOP nomination after this Munich. Voters need to do some serious house cleaning the next few elections, and maybe it can start with these two bozos.
This isn’t about getting everything they want. It is about preventing the minority party from becoming the de facto majority through the use of the filibuster.
Here’a a Kleenex Montie…
” It is about preventing the minority party from becoming the de facto majority through the use of the filibuster.”
De facto majorities do a lot more than stop a few judges.
Chris,
Looks like they ARE the de facto majority regardless. At least until the Republicans learn how to muscle McCain and crew into line.
Oh, and thanks Rafael, tiranny by the minority almost always brings tears to my eyes.
Actus,
“De facto majorities do a lot more than stop a few judges.”
So we have seen. As the Democrats have tried to throw a wrench into the works regarding everything the “actual majority” (of voters that is) demonstrated they wanted in the last election.
La Shawn,
Just saw your reference to McCain’s new movie. while McCain often leaves me scratching my head in wonderment over his Senatorical antics, I cannot fault the man’s bravery in combat and especially as a high profile POW. Truly his finest hour. Unlike tonight.
This will keep conservatives home in ‘06. Why vote? If you want to gauge how bad this is La Shawn, look at how gleeful Rafael Daniel is…
It was a sellout. I’ve already written the GOP and told them not to expect my donation, Graham to let him know any national aspirations he had are ended, and my senators to tell them to spend big, because people in our state will stay home.
Frist loses because he has been an incompetent leader. McCain will get more democrats than republicans to vote for him, his national rise is deeper in the toilet than the Newsweak koran story.
Is that a word? Senatorical? Perhaps I meant Senatorial.
“As the Democrats have tried to throw a wrench into the works regarding everything the “actual majority†(of voters that is) demonstrated they wanted in the last election.”
be careful when speaking of majorities of voters when talking about the senate. It doesn’t work that way.
Quote from PoliPundit:
Prediction 1: If a Supreme Court nominee is to the right of Karl Marx, these Democrats will filibuster him or her.
Prediction 2: If the Democrats ever manage to become a majority in the Senate, they will employ the “nuclear option.â€
– PoliPundit
Actus-
The majority in the Senate is the Republican party. I would have to say that Montie’s description is accurate, although I see where you contest his point.
This de facto majority WILL do lots more than filibuster on judges. They will push this advantage as far as they can (as they should). This will make it more difficult for the President to get his legislative agenda through Congress.
Kathy, I am gleeful. Joyful, even. I didn’t want to see the Senate grind to a halt over some nonsense. I am not invested in any way in these judicial nominees. Whatever their ideology, they won’t effect my everyday life. I still have to go to work, et cetera, no matter who is confirmed or not. If you hate the compromise, you hate it. I don’t. I just hope that from this point on there can be true bipartisanship in those (supposedly) hallowed halls. I am not holding my breath. Then again, I never do.
Rafael,
H’mm let see, now why would the Senate have ground to a halt… Oh yeah, because if the Republican majority voted to block the Democrat minority from preventing up or down votes on the judges that the President chose to appoint, they would throw a big hissy fit and just quit playing for a while.
“This de facto majority WILL do lots more than filibuster on judges.”
I still don’t see them being a de facto majority. if that’s the case, then why are non-democrat things like tort reform and bankruptcy passing?
Montie, I repeat: I am OVERJOYED that there is a compromise. I sincerely hope that the men and women GWBush sends up are genuinely qualified, legally and morally, to perform the duties my taxes will be paying them to do. I wish them NO ILL WILL. Now, let them get to doing the people’s work. What is so horrible about that?
I agree with your comment LaShawn.
Date rape was a HORRIBLE analogy..but with all these men having a pissing contest in here..I’m sure they didn’t notice. I so wish they’d grow up.
I will say this: you guys are at least SOMEWHAT thoughtful. I am going to have my headphones on FULL BLAST to drown out the crying I will hear at work tomorrow.
2008 horserace check: McCain up with media, way down with base. Frist, just down, man.
Chris, Mwalimu,Montie
What are the chances that the GOP could get their 3 but still do the nuke option at a later date?
Not ALL of us are upset by the compromise; although it’s definitely not perfect (is any compromise?), it had to be done and in the long run, strategically, it’s an overall positive for the GOP.
The moonbats at Kos and the DUh certainly aren’t celebrating the impending “theocracy”.
Being a moderate, I’m happy. But one thing I’m see a lack of, as far as complaints is that this argument, which Frist has been forced to acknowledge and, against his will, agree to acknowledges the judicial filibuster as a valid tactic in US senate.
In my opinion the best argument against it was the lack of precdent, now we have one.
To put it bluntly, the Reeps got a fish, the Dems got a fishing pole.
Wrong, guys, we just won big. The nuclear option was a bluff and it has paid off.
Owens, JRB and Pryor are the standard now, not the “extraordinary”.
I don’t think many people are getting this yet, but this is the end of the filibustering of judicial nominees by the senate democrats, and it happened because they were looking for a way out before next year’s election.
“date rape,” “travesty,” “grabbing ankles,” “sold out,” “hideous deal.”
Keep it up everybody. Hope you have the biggest soapboxes in the world so the rest of America can bear witness to your fanatical zeal for complete control and your inability to accept anything less. Nothing plays better than a consuming desire for unchecked power and your furious gnashing of teeth when you don’t get it.
When even Arlen Spector lines up with the party and you don’t, you might be a RINO.
I think this has only pushed the nuclear option back, not prevented it. If the midterm elections don’t change the balance of power in the Senate, we’ll be right back here in 2007. That is, when Bush sends a nominee up for the supreme court, the Dems will fillibuster. And the Reps will have little choice but to change the rules.
However, if the Reps pick up enough seats, God help some the Dems in the sentate. And the so-called moderates (aka opportunists) among the Reps will be sitting at the childrens table.
Unchecked power? Um… didn’t the voters decide that? The tiresome canard about “unchecked power” and the mis-applied anguish over “checks and balances” (which have nothing to do with a vote within the Senate) are signs of pure desperation on the part of the left. After holding sway for the majority of the 20th century, the loss of power seems to have unhinged the left.
“While McCain often leaves me scratching my head in wonderment over his Senatorial antics, I cannot fault the man’s bravery in combat and especially as a high profile POW.”
Politics is combat of sorts too Montie, and it takes bravery to buck a strong President and your party line for what you believe is necessary.
In the Clinton years, Republicans locked up in committee 70 of his judicial nominees. Out of 208 this Presidents, the Democrats are opposing 5. Out of these five, this compromise lets 3 go to a vote.
I would say 3 out of 5 of the remaining is a win, a far cry from 70, while avoiding considerable ill will that could have stopped every other attempt to do the peoples business in this President term, and payback when the next Democratic majority occurs, and it will.
I like it and John, so there.
ONLY THE GOP COULD SNATCH DEFEAT FROM THE JAWS OF VICTORY! Who else could take a “no-win” situation for DEMACRAPS and had them an unconditional “no-lose” situation.
Truly, a Party which doesn’t deserve majority status!
“Unchecked power? Um… didn’t the voters decide that? The tiresome canard about “unchecked power”
They decided on the composition of the senate. But again, be careful when drawing majoritarian conclusions about voters in the US from the composition of the senate.
Neither side is happy, thus I am happy. As a denizen of the ‘middle’ (and an avowed McCain supporter), I’d like to say that this deal is just what the doctor ordered. Bush gets 3 of his nominees, and there isn’t another needless law added to the books. I hate the idea of changing the rules/laws every time there is a disagreement.
Let’s face it, had the nuclear option been employed, the Dems were going to slow down the business of the Senate. Not that I blame them.
(BTW-As an attorney, I can attest that the “crisis” in the judiciary is non-existant. Bad judges exist everywhere. I am glad that those 14 in the Senate knew that.)
“What are the chances that the GOP could get their 3 but still do the nuke option at a later date?”
Nuke option ain’t gonna happen W.NM., at least not until Donkeys and the MSM are in power again and decide “advise and consent” is a vile right-wing Republican plot.
Expect this shift against the filibuster when, as I suspect, the GOP loses the Senate in ‘06 and HRC wins in ‘08. Meanwhile, we can expect the Donkeys to filibuster any Bush Supreme Court nominee for years in hopes of “running out the clock” and giving Hillary her shot.
As for the 3 judges in question, I don’t really expect the Donkeys to keep their word and allow up-or-down votes on all of them. Instead, we can probably anticipate non-filibuster stalling (putting holds on nominees, last-minute “evidence”, calls for new confirmation hearings, etc.). Maybe someday one or two might be confirmed.
The Manchurian Candidate comes through!
Well, when the senate and house have the same party in the majority, I don’t know why anyone would draw ‘majoritarian’ conclusions…
Actus said: “…be careful when drawing majoritarian conclusions about voters in the US from the composition of the senate.” Ok, how would you want to draw your conclusions? By exit polling data in Ohio?
Stephen said: “Bad judges exist everywhere.” Agreed. Given that fact, wouldn’t you say it’s time to start putting some good judges on the bench?
Hey Red,
I don’t think that the Senate, in all of its glory, would know a good judge if one bit them on their collective noses.
A good judge has no opinion, no religion, no political leaning and no concerns for a legacy.
A good judge relies wholly on the arguments proffered by the parties before him and the precedent as it exists. he has no ax to grind, nor an agenda to promote.
I can’t say that I know much about Justice Rodgers nor Brown, but I can say that determining if they will be good or bad judges based on how they personally think about “insert issue of choice here” does not make for good jurisprudence.
Stephen wrote, “Neither side is happy, thus I am happy. As a denizen of the ‘middle’ (and an avowed McCain supporter), I’d like to say that this deal is just what the doctor ordered. Bush gets 3 of his nominees, and there isn’t another needless law added to the books. I hate the idea of changing the rules/laws every time there is a disagreement. “
While I agree with you from reading the many earlier posts of yours that you are in the “middle”. I’d say you are in-between the Democrat and Republican party. Now you’ve probably seen my argument that both major parties are to the left of center. So… from my perspective you are to the left even though you are in-between the 2 parties.
What is my perspective about the “compromise”? My perspective is that there are a few Republicans (6) who were able to essentially not allow Frist to have the filibuster rule interpreted to not apply to judge confirmations. It wasn’t going to be a new law. Frist’s words were clear but leftists keep misinforming saying it’s going to be NEW law.
Also my perspective on the whole deal after watching Frist’s speech last night on C-SPAN is that he made it clear that the “constitutional option” is still available as a tool. The compromise didn’t take that away. It would just require (for Frist to use it) 2 of the 6 Republicans to change thier position to vote FOR the interpretation of the way the filibuster can or can’t be applied to judges.
My feeling is that John Warner (I’m from VA) will change his position on this if he feels the compromise isn’t working or isn’t being held to by the Democrats.
My feeling is that the Democrats will give John Warner fuel to change his position because the Democrats won’t hold to the agreement and will filibuster one or two or all 3 of the agreed to judges. Why would the REST of the Democrats adhere to a compromise made by SOME of the Democrats??????
I think my perspective is about as centrist as they come.
And that is that one party has not filibustered judge confirmations in the history of the U.S. and this has just started and it’s within the right of 51 senators to say the filibuster rule never was intended for judges. There are 7 other times filibusters don’t apply. That is for the yearly budget. That is for war declarations. That is for 5 other reasons. This isn’t taking the Senate’s right to filibuster in general. It’s just returning to the way the process has worked for the entire U.S. history minus 4 years.
Did I think that this was a crisis? No. There was a problem and it was a REASONABLE solution to interpret the filibuster rule as not applying to judges.
Reasonable.
It’s also fairly reasonable to have a compromise for 3 judges which kicks the can down the road but I guarantee EVERYONE here that the Democrats will continue to filibuster judges and the problem WILL continue to exist.
Bak,
Yeah, you’re right (Pun?), compared to you I’m a hippie. lol.
Though I think that the truth of the matter is that the Dems will revisit the filibuster when it comes SC nomination time. These nominations are perfuntory, and thus the perfect thing to fight over. Dems couldn’t lose because in truth they had nothing to lose. If the Rep’s went nuclear, the Dems would have used it up and down the stump during mid-terms. Everybody knew it.
The Reps got to save face, while the Dems got 2 ‘gimmes.’
win-win. That was good politics. That is how things get done.
Nobody is going to back out of this deal… Unless some Rep does it to screw Mccain, or some Dem wants to make like 50 Cent and make a name for himself in preparation for ‘08.
Stephen said: “A good judge relies wholly on the arguments proffered by the parties before him and the precedent as it exists. he has no ax to grind, nor an agenda to promote.”
I notice one glaring omission there. In addition to the valid points you’ve made, doesn’t a good judge have to rely upon and honor the law, particularly the supreme law of the land, the Constitution? The left twists the truth by saying that constitutionalists are furthering a right-wing agenda. Nonsense. Following the Constitution as it is written is not pursuing any agenda other than being a good judge who takes his or her oath of office seriously.
The Constitution is what it is and means what it says, no more and no less. If anyone wants to deviate from its provisions, then I suggest an amendment, the procedure for which is also spelled out rather clearly.
If I were on the Senate Judiciary Committee, my one and only question would be this: “Do you intend to follow the law as it is written, or do you plan to try to re-write it from the bench?”
And given what RedBeard said, many conservatives think that the Campaign Finance law isn’t constitutional (McCain/Fiengold responsible).
It certainly isn’t fair if you limit some people’s speech but don’t limit union’s speech.
In a given presidential year cycle the hard money raised by the candidates are up to $80 million raised and spent.
It isn’t that fair that during the same year the Unions spend $400 million. Yes there is other soft money raised and spent that I didn’t mention but a majority of the soft money raised and spent ALSO goes to Democrat causes.
Yet conservatives do not think that political speech should be limited (I have my internal debate about untrue speech – but who would be the determiner of what is true or not?).
But opinions are just that. It’s just to point out where I disagree with McCain and show libs how to show disagreement without attacking motives or character.
Priscilla Owen was just voted on to cut off debate (not filibuster).
The only folks who voted NO was Democrats. There were 17 of them. The most extreme of the Democrats who didn’t want to follow the compromise were:
Biden, Del.
Boxer, Calif.
Cantwell, Wash.
Corzine, N.J.
Dayton, Minn.
Dodd, Conn.
Dorgan, N.D.
Feingold, Wis.
Kennedy, Mass.
Kerry, Mass.
Lautenberg, N.J.
Levin, Mich.
Lincoln, Ark.
Murray, Wash.
Reed, R.I.
Sarbanes, Md.
Stabenow, Mich.
This is a who’s who of liberals except Hillary Clinton.
When Republicans stand on principle they WIN. McCain and the others refused to stand on principle and in doing so stabed the Republicans in the Back. Now the principle FOR ALL is that the filibuster is all right to use against judges.
Not that any of this matters. The real damage done is that the Idea of Activist Judges has won. Now the left will call any strict constructionist far right and will filibuster them. The Republicans will be unable to stop them. So the judges that DO get through will be more and more Activist.
The chance to stop the Idea of Activist Judges is gone. The future is bleak. Soon the Right will start putting up their own Activist Judges. After that elections will matter less and less as the true power is becomes Judges.
The First has been abridged and that abridgement supported by the Supreme Court. Now only more such decisions will follow. Soon the Second will also be set aside as not important in the MODERN world.
I don’t see any way to stop this now. It only remains to be seen what decision by an Activist Judge (either from the Left or the Right) becomes the final straw. It is no longer a question of IF it will happen, it is ONLY a question of WHEN.
The Left in their Blind Stupid rush to get what they want in any way possible, with Activist Judges, have their way. The light dims and in the future I hear the sounds of guns.
GOD! I hope I’m wrong.
Dan,
You are wrong.
The tide is turning but incrementally. You are right that the left is extreme but we are talking about a margin of 7 senators of the 55 Republican senators that couldn’t come around to interpreting the filibuster rule differently AT THIS TIME.
The Democrats will show their true colors again and filibuster another judge even before the SC judge has been nominated.
There will be opportunities for some of the 7 Republicans to be offended by the Democrats falling back on the “compromise” because the Democrats cannot stop accusing good people of incorrect bad things.
I disagree that the future is bleak. The more the Democrat leaders speak the more voters are turned off and vote Republican because there are alternative news sources now.
Democrats had their streak of power from 1930-1994. Now they are getting more and more loony and extreme and will not be able to turn the losing streak around because they do not have a monopoly on information anymore.
Republicans have a majority of governorships and legislatures and Congress and now the White House but that doesn’t mean GOVERNANCE is to the right. People are learning everyday that the Republican party really are addressing issues and yet not in an extreme fashion.
They are learning everyday that taken as a whole the Republican party is actually to the left of CENTER.
Let me just say real quick that there is the The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 sailing through the House. There are Republican co-sponsors and this thing even looks like it could be VETO PROOF.
Why? Why must the federal government spend money on stem cell research at all? Why did CA just pass a proposition spending 3 billion (big money 4% of the amount of the CA yearly budget in general – although funded over multiple years by a bond) for stem cell research. Why? When private industry has been hard at work finding a supply for cures to meet the demand for cures and have been doing so with stem cell research much more efficiently and effectively than the state and federal governments.
To the left we go… where we stop nobody knows…
Wow Dan.
Listen buddy, trust me when I tell you that the “activist judge” phenomena isn’t quite what it is cracked up to be.
And as someone pointed out, Justice Rodgers and Ms. Brown are now ‘mainstream’ according to the deal.
I guess the point that bothers me is this idea of ‘Activist’ judges. It has become a cute word to throw around when the need arises. It is an idea that got one judge’s husband killed.
The constitution is subject to interpretation. the rights afforded by the first and/or second may be interpreted differently, even among strict constructionalists. Everyone who disagrees with your interpretation is not an ‘Activist’.
Note to lefties…
You know what. Conservatives have a heart. We understand the “desire” to save lives with stem cell research. That isn’t the concern for many of us.
1) There are ethical concerns with embryonic stem cells (private industry has found 0 uses for these cells so far) but umbilical cord stem cells there have been over 40 uses found and there isn’t any stated ethical concern with umbilical cord stem cells to my knowledge (I could be incorrect).
2) There are efficiency and effectiveness concerns as well (though the main stream media doesn’t report this). Private industry is completely outperforming any government entity in this area of research. Why not have the dollars stay in the private sector where the most effective method of coming up with a cure or use for stem cells can be obtained? Isn’t this MORE compassionate?
3) There are budgetary concerns. We are in a defecit and yet every GOOD cause must be spent on? We have to set priorities and if we can’t set aside ONE priority our defecit will never get better. We only had a temporary surplus for 1.5 years during the 1998 1999 budget years before the recession and DURING the overspending/overheated technological sector of the economy due to EVERY corporation making sure they had no Y2K problem. I worked at CAL Fed Bank during those years. Millions were spent on redoing mainframe code and updating PC’s and servers and this was true form many corporations like Ford and GM and GE and health and finance and insurance and manufacturing companies. The amount. Point was that the temporary 1.5 year surplus was not a RESULT of Clinton economic policy (he predicted 1/2 of the deficit would remain by the end of his term) but in-spite of his economic policy.
Can anyone make a good reasonable non-attacking argument for federal stem cell research spending?
I apologize La Shawn if you do not wish for the thread to go in this direction…
Stephen, The definition of ‘Activist Judges’ has NOTHING to do with WHAT they decide. It has EVERYTHING to do with HOW. You are buying in to the Democrat charge that ‘Activist Judges’ are about the decisions and weither you like them or not. THIS IS WRONG! The question is what do the Judges base their decisions on. The plain reading of the Constitution and Laws of the US or do they believe in a ‘Living’ Constitution, ‘What the Laws SHOULD say and mean’, and What do they do in other countries.
Nobody really believed that the Supreme Court would support ALL of McCain-Finegold(sp). They knew that some parts are blantly anti-First Amendment. They expected the Supreme Court to strike down some of it. They were hoping that enough would be left so that some speach they didn’t like could be quashed. But the Supreme Court supported it fully to their lasting dishonor. And you think that future judges will be BETTER.
‘Activist Judges’ are REAL. They only pay lip service to the Constitution and the Laws. They decide by what they ‘feel’ is the best outcome and by what they can get away with. Judges who KNOW the way things SHOULD BE and are wiling to decide cases to make sure things move in the direction they KNOW we all should go. Those are ‘Activist Judges’.
Again I don’t CARE what decision a Judge reaches. I care about what he BASES that decision on and HOW he reaches it. If its not the Constitution and Laws using Logic and Reason without personal political opinion then he is an ‘Activist Judge’ and doesn’t belong anywhere near the bench.
At any rate Stephen, it is in the eye of the beholder. Constitutionalists and Conservatives have a perception that I believe is very valid that NEW rights and laws and interpretations are being created by judges everyday and we have “labeled” that activism.
While a judge saying that Under God shouldn’t exist in the Pledge of Allegiance might not be activist to you we “choose” to label it activist and it only does better for you to try to understand our position.
You can disagree and state that you don’t feel they are activist and we can say that we think they are.
I am merely pointing out that this “crisis” doesn’t exist.
If a judge asserts his own outcome determinative view and covers it up with ‘lip service’ to the constitution, yet acts extra-constitutional, wouldn’t that judge be reversed?
I know the 9th Circuit’s decision that “Under God…” was unconstitutional was looney, but guess what? So did the rest of the 9th.
Was the Mass. Supreme Court out of line? I dunno. I haven’t read the Ma. Constitution, nor the decision.
Unless you are reading the decisions of these judges, it is hard to say who’s activist and who’s principled. Often an otherwise principled judge may make an activist move, or an otherwise activist judge may make a principled one.
I think the crux of your arguments lies with the differences between strict constructionalist, originalists and modernists.
Other than Reinquist, no man is a true strict constructionalist.
Everyone else may be considered activist according to the definitions I’m seeing here.
Text of Memorandum on Patterico’s site.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.
This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.
We have agreed to the following:
Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations
A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).
B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).
Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations
A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.
B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.
We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “Advice†speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.
Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.
We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.
stephen johnson, You are right the “crisis†doesn’t exist FOR YOU or for the Democrats. And it will not exist until it hits you upside the head with a 2X4. At which time it will be to late. That is what I mean by Blind Stupid Democrats. As long as things are going THEIR they are happy. They refuse to see the Cliff down the road and will continue to refuse to see it until the road gives out and they are over the cliff. Then they will screem that the Republicans took the road.
If it was just the Democrats, I would say that was their problem but they are dragging everybody else with them.
Activist Judges are a problem that can and will destroy this contry unless they can be stopped. I just don’t see anyway to do that if the Republicans refuse to get a backbone and continue to let the likes of John McCain stab them in the back and then they turn and THANK HIM.
Frist on Hannity today said that “constitutional option” will be used at a later date. He called this dealmaking as just putting off the eventual getting to an actual time or need for ending filibusters. He clearly believes that the opportunity will come on Supreme Court nominees and he will then seek to use the option.
This was gutless self-gratification by some Senators to make themselves look better. For the GOP sellouts, there will be a day of reckoning.
What a difference a day HASN’T made. I’ll give you my take on this from a spiritual point of view: GET OVER IT. Seriously. Somehow, God is at work in this. Scripture informs me that all things work together for my good, whether I understand them or not. Whether or not I like what happens, if I trust the Creator’s plan, all will be well. Excuse me: all is already well. I do believe the earth kept spinning on its axis. The sun came up, even if it was covered by clouds (it was rainy here). The birds sang. In other words, life went on, just like it did the day before and just like it will unless the Lord decides there are no more tomorrows. No matter your political leanings, if you are a person that believes in Jesus the Messiah, your ticket has already been punched. So, be of good cheer. Peace.
I admire and appreciated what John McCain did asa soldier, but as a politician, for the last 10 years or so, he has proven to be just as craven as Teddy Kennedy.
All too often — a lot more within the last 4 years, when I see him talking that psuedo-maverick crap, I just wanna reach inside the boobtube and smack his face back into symetry.
Watching this whole issue unwind as it has, I keep looking for the rope-a-dope angle. If John McCain and the other quisling reps are the target, then I’m all for it. We’ll see.
“Actus said: “…be careful when drawing majoritarian conclusions about voters in the US from the composition of the senate.†Ok, how would you want to draw your conclusions? By exit polling data in Ohio?”
That has similar problems, perhaps not as bad, since not only are there sampling problems but there isn’t the imbalance in the samples that there is in the senate.
Has anyone taken on Howard Fineman’s spin “A food fight in the Big GOP Tent”?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7967628/
John McCain probably made the difference it took to keep a conservative President in office for another 4 years. He ‘actively’ campaigned for the President.
He is probably the only Republican right now that can keep the Presidency for us in 2008.
The NOW organization’s press release on the Judge Issue yesterday:
Today the Senate approved the controversial nomination of Priscilla Owen after a filibuster was ended — the result of a “compromise” by 14 senators Monday night. Democrats filibustered Owen’s nomination twice in the past four years, and it is worth noting that they again garnered more than the 41 votes needed to maintain a filibuster, had that option not been removed by the compromise.
“Another notch in Karl Rove’s belt,” NOW President Kim Gandy called the Senate’s 56 to 43 confirmation of Owen to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.
Owen, whose career from obscure Houston lawyer to the U.S. Court of Appeals was engineered by Karl Rove, embodies the basest of political motives—payback, pure and simple. Rove plucked Owen from relative obscurity and raised nearly $1 million for her first campaign. And he will no doubt be gratified, as Owens’ anti-women, anti-civil rights, anti-worker and pro-business opinions benefit the wealthy and powerful—George W. Bush’s political base. Like her fellow Texan Tom DeLay, Owen is ethically challenged, having taken campaign contributions from corporations like Enron and Halliburton and then ruling in their favor.
“Priscilla Owen is now the proud owner of a lifetime appointment to the second highest court in the United States, where she can inflict her utter disregard for individual rights on the people of Louisiana and Mississippi—as she has been doing for the more than 10 years in Texas,” charged Gandy.
As a member of the Texas Supreme Court, Owen consistently took the side of big corporations and the powerful against workers and against ordinary people who had been injured by wrongdoing. In one case involving a young man who had been injured in a truck accident, Owen delayed writing the opinion for a year and a half. According to the New York Times, “the man, who was on a respirator, died when the family could not afford nursing care because the appeal delayed the multimillion-dollar verdict.” Her pro-business bias is so strong that in her 2002 judiciary committee hearing, despite an extensive record of dissents, she could not find even one occasion in which she had dissented in favor of an individual suing a corporation.
Owen’s contemptible record on women’s rights, civil rights, and individual rights makes her unfit for a lifetime appointment, and many innocent people will pay the price for this base act of political patronage. Her opinions were publicly criticized at least a dozen times by Bush’s own Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, when they were both on the Texas Supreme Court. In one case, when Owen tried to re-write Texas’ abortion laws to suit her own ideology, Gonzales referred to the attempt as “unconscionable judicial activism.”
“Our democracy and our rights were compromised by the machinations of a power-hungry administration and its lackeys in the Senate who put their allegiance to George W. Bush above their oath of office,” Gandy said. “The fight is not over. Moderate senators must put the interests of their constituents ahead of the Republican leadership’s slash-and-burn politics, and refuse to be strong-armed into approving any more extremist nominees.”
WHEW! Enough untrue mischaracterizations and accusations and smears that you’d be mentally ill reading more than you just read ….
Comments on this entry are closed.