The filibuster deal is a victory for Republicans. The filibuster deal is a disaster for Republicans. Kavanaugh will be thrown under the bus. Kavanaugh will be confirmed. The deal offers Republicans an “out.” The deal locks Republicans in.
There is too much opinion floating about concerning the capitulation. I can’t waste my time talking about speculation. I know only a few things for sure.
First, the bad news:
The seven turncoat Republicans have sacrificed any principled argument that they believe the filibuster is unconstitutional.
They have also severely limited their ability to raise a principled objection to any single particular filibuster mounted by the Democrats.
Now, the good news:
They have already shown that they don’t care about principle in the slightest.
So there is still hope. If the Democrats mount a filibuster of a qualified nominee — as they most assuredly will at some point during the balance of the President’s second term — constitutionalists must pressure specific turncoats to declare the deal null and void. DeWine and Graham have been identified as the two most likely to do so.
Call them today, and keep their numbers handy. You’ll need them again soon.
However the battle goes, the turncoats have limited Bush’s ability to nominate strong candidates — meaning that, however future nominees are treated, this is a loss, any way you slice it.
Spoons has The Filibuster Deal for Dummies.
He could have titled it “The Filibuster Deal for Deal-Making Senate Republicans” with little change in meaning. It’s short and witty — go read it.
I was hoping that Beldar would return to comment on the GOP capitulation on judicial nominees, and I was not disappointed. His post title perfectly encapsulates my thinking: Seven gutless suckers in the Senate:
Sometimes you look at the results of a negotiation — supposedly made by bright, well-informed and -motivated adults on both sides — and you gotta shake your head and point to the folks who were on one side the the deal and say: “Them suckers just got robbed blind.”
Read it all. I have tried to explain why this deal doesn’t leave Republicans any way out when the filibusters come hot and heavy. See, for example, my post quoting the text of the sellout memorandum, and my update explaining why there is no escape clause for the GOP. If I haven’t convinced you, let Beldar take a crack at it:
Jonah Goldberg writes, “if the Democrats filibuster in something which Republicans don’t consider to be an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ won’t the deal be broken and then the Republicans will be free to change the rules[?]” Umm, no. Whoever drafted this piece of larceny extracted a concession which guarantees that the Republicans can never “cry foul” unless they can plead and prove that the Dems are not acting in “good faith” — and not objective “good faith,” as measured by the law’s proverbial “reasonable man” standard, but subjective “good faith,” as measured by each senator’s “own discretion and judgment.” No one can ever prove, or even make a compelling argument, that this standard will ever be violated.
Yup, that’s the problem exactly. Beldar nails it. McCain and company got played like the marks in a three-card monte scam.
The next few posts of mine deal exclusively with this surrender, and the seven chumps we’ll be opposing next time they run for office.
Nothing surprising here; just documenting the predictable L.A. Times fawning over the GOP capitulation on judicial filibusters. You know they just love it. After all, Harry Reid and Daily Kos are thrilled that the Democrats won with a losing hand. It therefore stands to reason that the L.A. Times is going to praise the “deal” as well.
There’s the “news analysis,” which could have been written by a staffer to Harry Reid. It’s titled A Center Forms to Outflank Left, Right, and it begins:
Monday’s last-ditch compromise on confirming federal judges was a striking reassertion of the power of the political center in a bitterly polarized environment, pulling the Senate back from the brink of a crisis that threatened to paralyze the institution and dramatically change its character.
If there is a set of Democrat talking points on filibusters — and I know there must be several — I guarantee you it says something very much like that opening paragraph.
That’s the news “analysis.” In the article on the capitulation, there is the obligatory “maverick” reference, specifically designed to send me running screaming from the room:
In a rare act of compromise on Capitol Hill, a maverick group of seven Democrats and seven Republicans reached an agreement Monday that forced the Senate’s leadership to stand down from a confrontation over federal judicial nominees.
Again, nothing surprising here. Just documenting the media fawning for posterity.
UPDATE: It should be noted that the paper’s editorial page has, for the most part, been on the correct side of this controversy — and today is no exception.
Comments Off on Predictable L.A. Times Spin on Capitulation