The 70-30 Option
As Senators continue to seek a compromise on judicial filibusters, I’d like to announce my own compromise proposal: the 70-30 Option. Under this proposal, Republicans will cave on 30% of all judicial nominees filibustered since 2000. We’ll even agree to include in that group the most qualified minority Bush has nominated to date. In return, Democrats must agree to confirm the rest, including all future nominees.
Sound fair? Good.
The 30% I would give them are Miguel Estrada, Charles Pickering, and Carolyn Kuhl. That’s 3 of 10 filibustered nominees.
I don’t like the compromise. These are three of the better candidates nominated by President Bush. But if this is what we have to do to get an agreement, so be it.
UPDATE: If the humor is too subtle for you, read the explanation in this comment. Or just click on the link immediately above, listing the names of Miguel Estrada, Charles Pickering, and Carolyn Kuhl.
If roles were reversed and Dems were in the majority, what would they do. I will take that deal.
bill (26027c) — 5/19/2005 @ 7:48 amI say, no deal. Nuke the filibuster already.
Xrlq (6c76c4) — 5/19/2005 @ 9:10 amThat’s a pretty arbitrary figure 70/30, isn’t it? Why not 60/40 or 80/20? Either the filibuster is unconstitutional, or it isn’t. Either the filibuster is undemocratic, or it isn’t.
The notion of a compromise doesn’t solve those two issues, but only means we’ll be revisiting the issue at some point in the future, and the sides will likely be reversed from their current positions (and the current partisan battle is the reverse of the filibuster issue of only a few years ago).
lawhawk (812057) — 5/19/2005 @ 10:07 amI say, no deal. Nuke the filibuster already.
Well, I agree. See, my deal is a little tongue-in-cheek, if you check the terms closely. Look at who I am conceding: Estrada, Pickering, and Kuhl. They’ve already been withdrawn (which readers can learn by clicking on the link, if they didn’t know it already).
I’m basically just making the rhetorical point that Bush has already given up 30% of his nominees.
Patterico (6b9be2) — 5/19/2005 @ 10:13 amAdd Bork.
Al (00c56b) — 5/19/2005 @ 11:51 amI’ll go them one better: offer appeals court seats to 4 Democrat senators, and maybe McCain. If we can’t find seats that don’t cause too much trouble, there’s a probably a few seats open in Guam.
Kevin Murphy (9982dd) — 5/19/2005 @ 3:13 pmIf the humor is too subtle for you – I guess you can go back to reading the LA Times.
Regret (9cd6cd) — 5/19/2005 @ 5:43 pmOuch.
Xrlq (5ffe06) — 5/19/2005 @ 6:09 pmCompromise is exactly like apologies.
Paul Albers (7494b1) — 5/20/2005 @ 3:38 amThey are both signs of weakness.
Fili-Blustering
Patterico has suggested an interesting compromise…
The Common Room (6ed3f8) — 5/20/2005 @ 8:35 am[…] ed White House drafts. Sound reasonable? UPDATE: Patterico suggests another compromise, here. No responses to ‘Sound Reasonabl […]
Confirm Them » Sound Reasonable? (e203ab) — 5/20/2005 @ 9:12 amDemocrats not dealing with a full deck
CNN reports on a proposed deal to end the judical nominee stalemate:
The Unalienable Right (7a057a) — 5/20/2005 @ 11:23 amWASHINGTON (CNN) — A bid to end the Senate standoff over President Bush’s judicial picks would let five nominees advance to a final vote while preserving the right of a minority of…
Amusing. But what about including Claude Allen, a first-term Bush nominee to the Fourth Circuit, in your calculations?
Granted, Allen, a Virginia resident, was a red flag for the two Democratic Senators from Maryland, who insisted that particular Fourth Circuit seat go to a Maryland resident. But it seems obvious that even without opposition from Sarbanes & Mikulski, Allen — a black conservative in his forties — would, if he hadn’t declined renomination, be faced with exactly the same sort of opposition that Janice Rogers Brown has encountered.
So we should properly count Claude Allen as another victim of Democratic obstructionism, together with Estrada, Kuhl & Pickering.
Again, your posts on the judiciary are on point. Keep it up.
Gary (30e41d) — 5/20/2005 @ 10:48 pm[…] The only compromise on judges that I will be willing to endorse is the Patterico compromise. […]
Hoystory » Blog Archive » The only compromise (322185) — 3/24/2006 @ 11:23 pm