Prediction
Democrats will not filibuster Bush’s first Supreme Court nominee — no matter who it is.
They will filibuster his second Supreme Court nominee — no matter who it is.
With William Rehnquist certain to be the first retirement, Democrats know that they can afford one truly conservative nominee. The balance of power will not change in the slightest. And it gives them an inexpensive way to “prove” that they “really mean” they will filibuster only in “extraordinary circumstances.”
Those will occur when President Bush selects his second Supreme Court nominee, unless it’s Stephen Reinhardt.
You heard it here first.
If Bush nominates Scalia to replace Rehnquist then the SCOTUS filibuster comes sooner than later. Unless the “reasonable” Republicans in the Senate devise another compromise.
Ray Zacek (053186) — 5/23/2005 @ 6:58 pmI think you may be correct, but only in this sense…
they’ll not filibuster the elevation of Scalia or Thomas (well maybe) to the Chief Justice spot. They will filibuster Scalia or Thomas’ replacement. If that’s the “2nd” nominee, than you’re correct.
Regards,
ARC: StWendeler (cdbca1) — 5/23/2005 @ 7:15 pmSt Wendeler
Another Rovian Conspiracy
[…] ;
by
Xrlq
@
6:22 pm
Patterico has multiple entries. Read ‘em and weep. Then read them again and pound a fist through a […]
damnum absque injuria » Non-News of the Day: Republicans Cave (38c04c) — 5/23/2005 @ 7:30 pmJust a quick thought.
Supposedly this is being done to preserve the filibuster.
Prediction time.
Assuming the Demorcratic party doesn’t go the way of the Whigs (there is a real chance of it in my opinion) does anybody doubt that if they get a majority in the Senate and the White House the “Nuclear Option” will not only be back but will be used?
With justices staying on the court for 20-30 years the effect of the option will be worth it, particularly if the party is dying and their interest groups will insist on it.
P. Ingemi (e8eca7) — 5/23/2005 @ 7:38 pmThe Temples of Syrinx: The Left Assumes Control
The deal struck in the Senate today, allowing the Democrats to maintain judicial filibusters, confirms that the latter, not the Republicans, control Congress. Others blogging: Patterico
DOUBLE TOOTHPICKS (b55965) — 5/23/2005 @ 8:10 pmthis post is why the “deal” is worthless…the constitution doesn’t allow them to filibuster anyone.
Stan (3d6135) — 5/23/2005 @ 8:10 pm“the constitution doesn’t allow them to filibuster anyone.”
well that settles that!
actus (3be069) — 5/23/2005 @ 8:12 pm“Democrats know that they can afford one truly conservative nominee.”
No. Never. Only Republicans believe they can “afford” to submit to substantive capitulation with their ideological foes.
The Dems are determined that America will be shaped by the judicial decrees of a liberal, activist Supreme Court; as a consequence, we have seen the last Rehnquist, Scalia, or Thomas. It’s all downhill from here, folks.
Quite simply, the Republicans have given the Dems no reason to believe that any real concession on their part is necessary to trounce the Republicans at every turn.
Quite the contrary to Patterico’s rosy prognostication: The Dems will fight every Bush Supreme Court nomination tooth and nail, and–if the past is any indication of the future–they will win.
clark smith (533338) — 5/23/2005 @ 8:19 pmThe situation now confronting the Democrats is problematic indeed.
Here is my analysis of the gaming situation: Of Chess and Politics: Nominations.
The post explains why this agreement is a big win for Frist and Bush.
Paul Deignan (7cc786) — 5/23/2005 @ 8:19 pmFrist has made it so conservatives have to rely on the democrats.
Stan (3d6135) — 5/23/2005 @ 8:22 pmPaul,
Don’t be stupid. The Republicans LOST big time. It is painfully obvious. And no amount of spin will change it. Look around you, if you need convincing. The anger on the right is palpable. The joy on the left is obvious.
We lost, they won. Time to pack up and never work for the traitorous, cowardly Republican party ever again.
Sydney Carton (e2a2a4) — 5/23/2005 @ 8:34 pm“The anger on the right is palpable”
this whole thing has been about creating anger on the right. its what the right has become. an outrage industry.
actus (3be069) — 5/23/2005 @ 8:39 pmActus:
“this whole thing has been about creating anger on the right. its what the right has become. an outrage industry.”
Brilliant analysis of the American political landscape. Because, at the other end of the spectrum, the Left has been calm, cool and rational these past 5 years.
If it works for you go with.
SMG
SteveMG (822af7) — 5/23/2005 @ 8:44 pm“Brilliant analysis of the American political landscape. Because, at the other end of the spectrum, the Left has been calm, cool and rational these past 5 years.”
I do admit that leftist outrage is much less organized into an industry. But giving us some dobson judges out to change that.
actus (3be069) — 5/23/2005 @ 8:47 pmSydney,
It might have been a loss had the GOP agreed unconditionally not to nuke or had agreed to affirmatively dump certain judges. Neither occurred.
In fact, the Dems agreed to unconditionally allow a vote for three judges to include Pryor (you know, the guy who said Roe is bad law)!
This is politics and don’t you forget it. Ultimately it is all played out in elections and the potential to be re/elected.
The test truly before the public is, “Who is extreme? and Who can I trust?” If the GOP is responsible, they win. They now control the game more than before the agreement. They are in the position to discredit the Dems for the next election.
THIS IS A HUGE POLITICAL WIN FOR THE GOP.
Paul Deignan (e5501b) — 5/23/2005 @ 10:13 pmPaul,
Unlike many Republicans who seem to be more interested in setting up the opposition for the next race, I am interested in governing while they hold power. I am interested in breaking the power of supremacist courts and reaffirming democratic principles of majoritarian rule. This is a fleeting moment in history and you want me to fucking wait until 2006? FUCK THAT. We should’ve gotten conservative judges in 2000 when Bush was elected. We’ve gotten screwed since then, on the advice of people like YOU who tell me to fucking wait. To hell with that. It is STUPID, and it has proven to be STUPID. Unless, of course, you’re only in it for the permanent campaign – which, as I’m beginning to learn, a lot of Republicans have an invested livelihood in.
I am sick and goddamn tired of the Republicans using these things as talking points for a new donation. My patience is at its end. I will NEVER TRUST THEM AGAIN, NEVER DONATE TO THEM AGAIN, AND NEVER WORK FOR THEM AGAIN. I elected those bastards for a reason, and they couldn’t even get a conservative appellate judge appointed.
They have shit all over their grassroots supporters. They can go to hell. And you can kindly stop giving idiotic advice, telling me to fucking wait until the next election. I’ve been waiting for years and NOW was the moment to act, and they pissed all over us. Well, I can do the same. FUCK the Republican Party.
Sydney Carton (e2a2a4) — 5/23/2005 @ 10:27 pmPaul, you are living in fantasy land. The Republican party just lost the 2006 elections. They will return to minority status, where they belong.
Conservatives will not support a party that lies to them, and that is exactly what the Republicans have done. Mark my words. This is a disaster for the Republican party, from which they may never recover. Perhaps, in two years, we will see the first Libertarians ever elected to the House – perhaps even the Senate – as conservatives abandon the Republicans in droves.
antimedia (d3ee0c) — 5/23/2005 @ 10:32 pmPatrick:
Your prediction reminds me a bit of the Scalia and Bork nominations. The GOP put Scalia first, saving the ‘safer’ nomination for second, only to be surprised when the Democrats didn’t go along.
If you’re right, then Bush ought to first nominate the wildest conservative he can think of, then nominate someone the Democrats would find it hard(er) to oppose. Not that they won’t oppose, but there’s no sense making it easy for them, is there?
The danger is that the Democrats will think that if they give a free pass to the first nomination, then that establishes the baseline for determining ‘extraordinary’, and anyone even slightly to the left of the first nominee would be, by definition, not extraordinary. So maybe the Democrats don’t sit on their hands during the first Supreme Court nomination?
Ah, if only the MAVERICK 7 hadn’t folded yesterday, the whole question of Democrats filibustering nominees would be a moot point. Heck, what’s the point of being a MAVERICK, if not to drive your own party crazy.
Got to go, some TV station is running a James Garner MAVERICK marathon, afterwards I think I’ll catch Tom MAVERICK Cruise in Top Gun.
steve sturm (e37e4c) — 5/24/2005 @ 6:50 amThis ONLY works if Bush’s 3 Supreme Court nominees are … Pryor, Owen & Brown. I don’t doubt that Democrats will try to filibuster them, but since they’ve already agreed not to, their hypocracy will be overwhelming.
SaveFarris (59f99f) — 5/24/2005 @ 7:36 amSorry to burst your bubble, dude, but I already made that prediction on March 12.
http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=164
Andrew (d85f42) — 5/24/2005 @ 11:32 amWanna bet?
TJ Jackson (708a0c) — 5/25/2005 @ 2:39 pmI say nominate Hon. Robert Bork first.
Charles D. Quarles (593219) — 5/25/2005 @ 4:37 pm[…] we know that Democrats are going to filibuster any reliably conservative nominees. I have predicted that the first nominee will probably make it through without a filibuster. But the […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Response to Bainbridge (0c6a63) — 6/25/2005 @ 5:24 pm[…] Methinks Patterico was right, when he wrote this on May 23, 2005: Democrats will not filibuster Bush’s first Supreme Court nominee — no matter who it is. […]
Confirm Them » W’s Second SCOTUS Nomination (e203ab) — 7/21/2005 @ 3:49 pmThe Patterico Gambit
Patterico is all over the upcoming moves and counter-moves on the Judiciary-Committee chessboard!
Big Lizards (fe7c9d) — 9/17/2005 @ 6:48 pm