Patterico's Pontifications

7/5/2005

Professor Bainbridge Comforted by Ravings of Fringe Leftist

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 6:57 am



Professor Bainbridge continues to be pleased with the Republican capitulation on the nuclear option. His latest evidence is set forth in this post:

Despite cranky complaints from Patterico and others, I’m sticking with my support of the filibuster deal. Why? the latest evidence I was right comes from this freaking out liberal.

Hmmm. I wouldn’t place a lot of stock in the ravings of this particular freaking-out liberal, who is so hard-left that he thinks the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales would be a triumph for right-wingers:

Truthfully, I think Bush is going to nominate Gonzales, which would be sort of unremarkable under these circumstances if it weren’t for all the executions and the war crimes. Of course the crazies are all saying he’s too liberal — and they’ll probably succeed in convincing the dips–t gang of 14 that they got Bush to nominate a moderate.

I’m not comforted by the idea that Alberto Gonzales will be nominated and confirmed, even if it might upset some fringe leftist who thinks Gonzales is responsible for “all the executions and the war crimes” — whatever that means.

But let’s assume that we should take comfort in the nervousness of those on the radical left. What’s making them nervous? Clearly, part of it is the prospect that, even under the deal, the nuclear option is still on the table. For example, the Washington Post article that had our leftist friend so upset says:

Under the “Gang of 14” accord, the seven Republican signers agreed to deny Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) the votes he needed to carry out his threat to bar judicial filibusters by changing Senate rules. The seven are implicitly released from the deal if the Democratic signers renege on their end. Yesterday, key players suggested the seven Democrats will automatically be in default if they contend a nominee’s ideological views constitute “extraordinary circumstances” that would justify a filibuster.

The only reason the pact has any teeth is because a Democrat filibuster that violates the deal arguably frees Republican signatories to employ the nuclear option. But Professor Bainbridge doesn’t want them to — even if the Democrats filibuster under non-extraordinary circumstances. As I understand Bainbridge’s position, he wants to maintain the filibuster for the future, and he wouldn’t employ the nuclear option even if the Democrats were to initiate a filibuster that clearly violated the deal’s terms.

If the Republicans in the Gang of 14 were to adopt Professor Bainbridge’s position, our “freaking-out liberal” friend would be resting much easier. The one thing that most upsets our leftist friend — and that gives me any hope — is the fact that the nuclear option is still on the table.

UPDATE: I stand corrected on one point: our fringe leftist friend claims to eagerly await the deployment of the nuclear option. I remain skeptical that President Bush is going to be able to push through any genuine conservatives without the Senate’s having to resort to the nukes. I guess we’ll see, won’t we?

15 Responses to “Professor Bainbridge Comforted by Ravings of Fringe Leftist”

  1. Funny how Washington Post misspells Gonzales’ name in a headline, then drudge links to it repeating the error. Yeah, I realize it was probably an intern typing in the headlines, but still.

    Bush: ‘Tone Down’ Attacks Against Gonzalez

    Shredstar (91b3b2)

  2. If you are correct in that Bainbridge doesn’t want the nuclear option used if needed for a Supreme Court nominee prefering instead that it be kept for later it reminds me of the old logistics problem. A spare part is required for an emergency. However, the storekeeper won’t release the part because if he does then he won’t have it if there is an emergency. Baindridge and the storekeeper have reasonable but illogical responses.

    Davod (51e146)

  3. The deal, thus far, has been a PR triumph for the R’s. If Bush nominates, say, Owen, the Dems are stuck.

    The longer-term consequences of the precedent that was set remain to be seen, however. We’ll get a first look at them soon, tho, since Bush looks likely to make at least 2 nominations, and perhaps 3 or 4, depending on Stevens & Ginsburg.

    [And I still think a rule allowing time-limited filibusters is the overall best approach. I.e. delay, not block]

    ras (f9de13)

  4. “war crimes–whatever that means”

    Saying that torture is not torture unless it creates loss of function in limb or organ means that electrodes to body parts aren’t torture if the body part functions later… that’s setting the bar down to the level of some very unsavory nations–the set of nations that don’t respect the rights of individuals.

    Redbeard (e8e8de)

  5. Why not Janice Rogers Brown? She actually has said many times the American laws should be based on the American Constitution – as opposed to what the Cheese eating surrender monkeys do.

    Rod Stanton (7b6143)

  6. The one thing that most upsets our leftist friend — and that gives me any hope — is the fact that the nuclear option is still on the table.

    And think back, Patterico, into the dim mists of a few weeks ago: who was the only person on Power Line, Captain’s Quarters, Beldar Blog, and yeppers, even on Patterico’s Pontifications arguing that the “deal” was not a legal contract, and that indeed, any of the Seven Dwarfs could leave and vote for the constitutional option anytime he wanted? Which means, anytime he thinks the Democrats have reneged on their part?

    Come now, let’s have a little credit where it’s due. Who made yesterday the same argument you’re making today?

    (Humming overloudly and innocently looking about.)

    Dafydd

    Dafydd (df2f54)

  7. All I know is that when Howard Dean, head of the Democrat Party, speaks Bush had better listen. And Dean has already warned Bush not to nominate a rich white man that has never worked a day in his life. So that leaves out rich, lazy white guys like Janice Brown, Emilo Garza, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice. He’d better go looking for minorities that pulled themselves up despite the roadblocks “The Man” put in their way. Like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John Edwards, Barbra Boxer or even the Reverend Martin Luther Dean himself.

    Lew Clark (756207)

  8. Dafydd,

    I still think the agreement doesn’t actually give them the “out” that they claim it does. And, while I know it’s not a “legal agreement,” words still mean what they mean — and if the Democrats cry foul and point to the agreement, its words could end up being parsed quite as closely as any contract.

    However, I think it’s also true that the agreement “arguably” leaves the nuclear option on the table. The best argument I have seen for this was made here, at Beldar’s blog. My reaction to that argument is much the same as Beldar’s: nice try; I’m not buying it; maybe some voters will; at the very least it’s a nice potential political smokescreen.

    Still, given the public pronouncements of the signatories, it’s clear that the nuclear option is on the table, in the minds of several (and perhaps all) Republican signatories. Whether their belief is consistent with the actual terms of the agreement is another question entirely.

    (Walking by and pointedly ignoring the overloud humming.)

    Patterico (7955ac)

  9. Patterico/Dafydd,

    I really really doubt the public is gonna parse the agreement anymore closely than this:

    1. The parties agreed that they would try not to filibuster and to get along.

    2. It didn’t hold. Oh well, that just confirms my cynical view of politicans anyway. It’s biz as usual, I guess.

    3. I don’t care who screams what. Just do your jobs, appoint some judges, and get back to work against terrorism and for the economy.

    The Dems will scream that the nominees are extremist. The R’s will counter that they’re not. That’s the only arg that will resonate in the least. And even that will make no diff if the R’s just move quickly, get it done, and leave the Dems to scream about the past.

    Amd yes, I do think the D’s will filibuster. They desperately need an issue – I mean, it’s not like they have a platform of any sort – so what else can they do? And if they don’t filibuster at all, they lose their moonbat wing. So they’ll do it.

    ras (f9de13)

  10. Still, given the public pronouncements of the signatories, it’s clear that the nuclear option is on the table, in the minds of several (and perhaps all) Republican signatories. Whether their belief is consistent with the actual terms of the agreement is another question entirely.

    Seeing as no one can ever sue on this “agreement” anyway, perhaps that’s all that matters. I’d love to see one of the 7 Democrats support a filibuster for no good reason, get nuked, and then complain publicly that the Repubs are in breach because “‘extraordinary circumstances’ was supposed to mean whatever we want, whenever we want it, dammit.”

    Xrlq (5ffe06)

  11. “She actually has said many times the American laws should be based on the American Constitution ”

    Not to mention Herbert Spencer’s social statics!

    actus (3be069)

  12. I think Digby expresses my sentiments exactly here. And I am not the only one who agrees with this, by a long shot:

    “What Patterico fails to understand is that I want that nuclear option, I need that nuclear option. I’m [expletive deleted as it may offend rightwingers unfamiliar with the unexpurgated Nixon tapes] dying to have that fight. We so-called freaking out liberals have been pushed to the wall. We’re accused of being traitors at every turn, of wanting to give terrorists therapy, of being unamerican. People are making millions selling books saying that everything I believe in is treason. There are pick-ups all over the country that have “liberal hunting licence” bumper stickers on them. Being called a “fringe leftist” these days is actually kind of cute. How about terrorist sympathizer? Now there’s a descriptive insult with some meat on it!

    “I am the last person who is afraid of Bill Frist going nuclear. Like a cornered animal, I’ve got nothing to lose. In fact, it’s my fondest wish. If we could score a knock-out on Bush we might actually open some eyes in this country. And even if we don’t, so what? When you go out of your way to rub your rivals noses in the dirt,particularly when they comprise an army as big as yours, don’t be surprised when they start to see mutually assured destruction as an alternative. “

    tristero (4617c3)

  13. – For Clarence Thomas, it was the hearing with the pubic hair on the coke can.
    – For Bork, someone obtained and released his Video Store rental records (he rented Fred Astaire).
    – For the Michael Jackson trial, his porn stash was presented.
    – For the Scott Peterson trial, his cable-tv porn rental records were presented as evidence.

    You know, this is going to get nasty. Stand clear and watch the fireworks.

    Shredstar (91b3b2)

  14. Ol’ Digby seems to have a little obsession with what the fringe right says about the left. I understand; a lot of people on the right get their noses way out of joint worrying about what those on the fringe left say about them. I probably succumb to that from time to time myself.

    I don’t think you and Digby are traitors, and I don’t want to hunt you. But I know that Digby’s definition of far-right and mine are quite different.

    Patterico (756436)

  15. “- For Bork, someone obtained and released his Video Store rental records (he rented Fred Astaire).”

    And thanks to that, congress passed the video privacy protection act. Did they ask bork what he thought about the right to information privacy? I doubt it.

    actus (cd484e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0888 secs.