Patterico's Pontifications


“Maverick” Ban

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 8:59 pm

If I hear you use the word “maverick” over the next 24 hours, I can’t be held responsible for my actions.

A Secret Deal to Vote Down Owen, Brown, or Pryor?

Filed under: Judiciary,Scum — Patterico @ 8:54 pm

So, you think Owen, Pryor, and Brown will all make it, eh?

Howard Bashman certainly does:

The deal expressly guarantees up-or-down votes, and thus confirmation, for D.C. Circuit nominee Janice Rogers Brown, Fifth Circuit nominee Priscilla R. Owen, and Eleventh Circuit nominee William H. Pryor, Jr.


Confirm Them goes so far as to congratulate “Judge William H. Pryor Jr.”

Slow down there, hoss.

A Kevin Drum commenter says that, according to Lindsey Graham on MSNBC, one of Owen, Pryor, or Brown will be voted down on the floor.

Has anyone else heard this? I can’t find a transcript. I wouldn’t put it past the traitorous seven to agree to help vote down one of the three . . .

I’ll put it in the “rumor bin” for now, but it certainly has the ring of truth.

UPDATE: In the comments, Beldar (who saw the interview) says that Graham was just saying confirmation of nominees who are getting a vote will not be automatic. He could easily have been referring to Saad, whose goose was likely cooked anyway.

The Gloating Begins

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 8:43 pm

Daily Kos says the capitulation is a “huge victory.” And here he says: “quite frankly, they lost.”

Harry Reid: “This is a significant victory for our country, for democracy, and for all Americans.”

Remember this when some mush-head says: looks like both sides are upset, so it must be a good compromise.

UPDATE: MyDD: “We can hold our heads high and tell our friends and family that we won. They can’t do that.”



Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 6:45 pm

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.

Enjoy it Now

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:24 pm

The fabled 14 Senators who struck today’s historic capitulation are going to be the toast of the media for days to come. We’ll get the pleasure of seeing them smugly talk about pulling us back from the brink of disaster, and the mainstream media is going to go nuts.

These folks had better enjoy this attention. Because there are a lot of us out here who are as mad as hell. And when this little lovefest is over, and it’s back to politics as usual, we’ll still be here, and we’ll still be mad as hell.

So go ahead and bask in the praise, Lindsey Graham. Soak in the applause, John McCain. And all the rest of you turncoats . . .

Enjoy it now. We’re not going to forget this. Not now. Not ever.

The Text of the Capitulation

Filed under: Judiciary,Morons — Patterico @ 5:45 pm

Confirm Them has the text, which I’ll reproduce here:


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.

It’s a complete and pointless capitulation.

Here’s who to oppose the next time they are up for election: McCain, DeWine, Snowe, Warner, Graham, Collins, and Chafee.

UPDATE: Read it. The only conceivable “out” for Republicans is if Democrats fail to live up to the agreement — but each Democrat commits only to “use his or her own discretion and judgment” in deciding whether to filibuster. All they have to do is say: “My conscience tells me this nominee should be filibustered” and they have lived up to the deal.

It’s very simple: the Republicans lost. Their hands are tied. They caved. There is no silver lining.

Breaking News — Republicans Cave

Filed under: Judiciary,Morons — Patterico @ 5:11 pm

Details are sketchy, but it looks like the nuclear option will not happen.

Owen, Pryor, and Rogers get a vote. Others may not.

Dems will filibuster only under “extraordinary circumstances” — i.e., if Bush nominates a conservative.

UPDATE: The next time John McCain runs for any elective office, I pledge to support his opponent. I will use my blog to encourage others to vote for his opponent.

I am singling him out because of his fascist campaign finance law, which will not stop me in any way from using this blog to oppose John McCain for the rest of his days.

That is my solemn pledge to you.

Who is with me?

UPDATE x2: Sounds like Michelle Malkin and Captain Ed are — and thanks to them for the links.

Some folks, like Pejman, are pleased with the deal. They seem to think there is some latitude to revoke it if the filibusters come hot and heavy. Well, we’ll see.

UPDATE x3 [January 8, 2008]: Well, not if his opponent is a Democrat. I’m not insane! In that case, I may just maintain a sullen silence.

This Weekend on Patterico

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:37 am

What am I doing? I have a promotional test to study for, and instead I’m blogging. My loss is your gain — or maybe it’s your loss too. You be the judge. Anyway, here’s what I was talking about this weekend:

Most of the links related to judicial nominees, which is in my view the hottest issue out there. We’ll start with the pure confirmation links, and move on to media bias as it relates to the filibuster wars. First, pure confirmation links:

The most surprising post for regular readers is probably the one in which I came out in favor of returning the blue slip to Democratsfor this term only. No joke. They’ve been treated unfairly, and returning the blue slip to them is a way of acknowledging that fact.

I invite leftist critics to give us their specific and detailed criticisms of Priscilla Owen — and I require only that they actually have read the opinions they criticize. Dafydd is right: the sound you hear is crickets chirping.

Excellent confirmation links available here.

And here are some media-related filibuster posts:

The New York Times treated Sen. Santorum’s comparison of Democrats to Hitler as a “new low” — ignoring Sen. Byrd’s previous comparison of Republicans to Hitler.

The L.A. Times is predictably treating the prospect of the “nuclear option” as something to be avoided at all costs — and a compromise (one favorable to Democrats, naturally) as the most desirable outcome.

Power Line reported on how a freelance journalist violated their policies on participating in demonstrations. (This was a demonstration about judicial filibusters.) Make sure to read the comments — reliable commenters are defending the NYT!

Guess what? CBS’s Bob Schieffer is on the leftists’ side on the filibuster controversy. Who’da thunk it??

What is the point of that AP/Ipsos poll?

On miscellaneous topics:

Joan Didion — yes, that Joan Didion — has an excellent article about Terri Schiavo. Really! I link it here.

What is wrong with my Treo 650??

I have a review of a staged performance of Schubert’s Winterreise that I saw this weekend.

All you really had to do was scroll down . . . but hopefully this makes things just a smidgen easier. Enjoy.

Michael Connelly in the L.A. Times

Filed under: Books — Patterico @ 6:35 am

Mystery novelist Michael Connelly has a nice piece in today’s L.A. Times about cold-case murders titled Old, but Never Totally Cold.

Until I read it, I hadn’t realized he has a new book out, titled The Closers.

And a new book means a book signing tour. I have read every book the man has written, but have never gotten the chance to meet him. (During his last book tour, I was in trial.) I excitedly went to his web site to see when the L.A. signing will be . . .

Turns out it was this weekend. I missed it.

More Pro-Democrat Spin from Ron Brownstein

Filed under: Dog Trainer,Judiciary — Patterico @ 6:30 am

Ronald Brownstein continues the L.A. Times theme: nuclear option bad, “compromise” good. Nuclear option bad, “compromise” good:

Is it possible that any of these titanic Senate majority leaders from years past would abdicate responsibility for resolving the confrontation over judicial nominations, as the job’s current occupant, Tennessee Republican Bill Frist, has done?

Nothing may be more remarkable about this Senate showdown than who is trying to defuse it. Frist, ostensibly the man with the gavel, has thrown up his hands and insisted he cannot reach an agreement with Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) over the Democrats’ use of the filibuster, a procedural maneuver that allows 41 senators to prevent a floor vote, against some of President Bush’s judicial nominees.

That’s left an assortment of mavericks, malcontents, back-benchers, gray eminences and ideological heretics from the two parties to try to settle an unnecessary crisis that could fundamentally alter the Senate’s character.

I am at a loss as to how the nuclear option would so fundamentally alter the Senate’s character, when filibusters against candidates with clear majority support have never happened.

But the Democrats love this spin, since any compromise means they keep the filibuster. You can almost hear Harry Reid whispering in Brownstein’s ear:

Nuclear option bad, “compromise” good.

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0657 secs.