My View of the Senate Deal: Take 2.
My God, my blog this morning responding to Sean, Jib, and James on the filibuster deal was awful. Not only do I miss the entire point of Sean's response but the blog itself is all muddled and pointless. Now that the coffee intoxication (coupled with sleep deprivation) is gone let me state more clearly my take on the deal.
As I have been able to think about the deal and read some of the commentary I am smiling more often than not.
I think we need to remember some things. The MoveOns, PFAW, the ACTs and so on are ticked about this. They worked hard and long to block the three nominees from senate approval; it was a serious defeat for them. I do not recall them complaining about Mr. Saad and the other nominee but it is what they have to settle for, a chicken nugget to a famished lion. Schadenfreude is one reason to like this deal.
Here are the positives from the deal (above and beyond simple schadenfreude). We get three justices through the filibuster gauntlet and not just any judges. The Democrats have really done a good job sticking together on opposing these three and now that opposition is broken. They have spent long months telling us how radical and out of the mainstream they are; well, the standard for mainstream just shifted in our favor. This is the biggest victory in this situation. Now, the MoveOns need to do more than just assert a given judge is radical.
The Democrats fired before they were able to see the whites of their eyes and they were using an elephant gun to shoot a mouse. That is to say, they used the filibuster weapon inappropriately to achieve their goals. Their chief goal should be to keep the SCOTUS balanced or at least close and not to worry inordinately about the lesser courts. They should have reserved the filibuster's use against supreme court appointments only. The GOP is now ready for the use of the filibuster against supreme court nominees. The Dems also increased the profile of Pryor, Rodgers-Brown, and Owens and if they thought it terrible those three are on the circuit courts my guess is they will shortly be confirming one of them for an even higher seat and the Dems will have a hard time
resisting that promotion, as according to the gang of 14 they are now not "extreme judges." Another truism comes to mind, they that defend everything defend nothing.
The negatives of course are it is a deal that depends on some vague wording. Whenever a critical mass of the agreeing Democrats decide that a justice is "too extreme" then, the deal is off. There too are the justices on the no-list. They will obviously have to wait until after 2006 to get their day on the bench (or a recess appointment). Still if the deal breaks down, provided it happens between now and 2006 (or after provided we keep or expand the number of Republican senators) we are no worse off.
No the glass is not full, it is probably about 3/4ths full. Now, let us dust off our feet and get to work on claiming another six or seven senatorial seats.
As I have been able to think about the deal and read some of the commentary I am smiling more often than not.
I think we need to remember some things. The MoveOns, PFAW, the ACTs and so on are ticked about this. They worked hard and long to block the three nominees from senate approval; it was a serious defeat for them. I do not recall them complaining about Mr. Saad and the other nominee but it is what they have to settle for, a chicken nugget to a famished lion. Schadenfreude is one reason to like this deal.
Here are the positives from the deal (above and beyond simple schadenfreude). We get three justices through the filibuster gauntlet and not just any judges. The Democrats have really done a good job sticking together on opposing these three and now that opposition is broken. They have spent long months telling us how radical and out of the mainstream they are; well, the standard for mainstream just shifted in our favor. This is the biggest victory in this situation. Now, the MoveOns need to do more than just assert a given judge is radical.
The Democrats fired before they were able to see the whites of their eyes and they were using an elephant gun to shoot a mouse. That is to say, they used the filibuster weapon inappropriately to achieve their goals. Their chief goal should be to keep the SCOTUS balanced or at least close and not to worry inordinately about the lesser courts. They should have reserved the filibuster's use against supreme court appointments only. The GOP is now ready for the use of the filibuster against supreme court nominees. The Dems also increased the profile of Pryor, Rodgers-Brown, and Owens and if they thought it terrible those three are on the circuit courts my guess is they will shortly be confirming one of them for an even higher seat and the Dems will have a hard time
resisting that promotion, as according to the gang of 14 they are now not "extreme judges." Another truism comes to mind, they that defend everything defend nothing.
The negatives of course are it is a deal that depends on some vague wording. Whenever a critical mass of the agreeing Democrats decide that a justice is "too extreme" then, the deal is off. There too are the justices on the no-list. They will obviously have to wait until after 2006 to get their day on the bench (or a recess appointment). Still if the deal breaks down, provided it happens between now and 2006 (or after provided we keep or expand the number of Republican senators) we are no worse off.
No the glass is not full, it is probably about 3/4ths full. Now, let us dust off our feet and get to work on claiming another six or seven senatorial seats.
posted by Marcus Aurelius @ 7:02 PM
<< Home