Patterico's Pontifications

5/24/2005

Spoons Explains the Filibuster Deal

Filed under: Humor,Judiciary,Morons — Patterico @ 7:00 pm



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.

20 Responses to “Spoons Explains the Filibuster Deal”

  1. Patterico,

    Well, you still sound comitted to this idea of yours, but I am sensing a deperation in the argument.

    One bottle of wine or an ocean of whine? What say you?

    Paul Deignan (ee931a)

  2. Patterico, why do you, Beldar etc. keep claiming the 7 Republicans are dumb? More likely they just aren’t on your side for this issue.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  3. Did you read the Spoons article Patterico points to? If you did, then you wouldn’t ask the question. Of course the ignoble seven are dumb. They gave away everything for nothing. You can’t get much dumber than that.

    antimedia (380dbd)

  4. Paul, you’ve been shopping your idea all over the blogosphere. Does that make you desparate? You’re entitled to your opinion, even if you’re 100% wrong, which you are in this case, “intelligent argument” notwithstanding.

    antimedia (380dbd)

  5. “Patterico, why do you, Beldar etc. keep claiming the 7 Republicans are dumb? ”

    Because given a choice between ‘backstabber’ and ‘dumb’ they give the 7 the benefit of the doubt?

    Because if they _aren’t_ “on our side for this issue”, then they are deliberately misstating their position to the detriment of their putative party.

    “Sorry, I don’t feel Saad is qualified, so I’m voting no” is different from “We’ve worked very hard and we’ve got this great deal and we hope we can all just get along.” Especially when beans-for-cow looks better.

    Al (00c56b)

  6. Antimedia,

    Wow, your universe is rather small. (I called the result on Drums site almost immediately–Patterico has the only other site that I posted on, minus some e-mails).

    Nonetheless, this is an opportunity that is ripe for a good challenge. Lets not just exchange words and arguments.

    I’ll open the offer to others. Any takers? Lets put this one to the test.

    Call it the “Wine for winners challenge”.

    Paul Deignan (ee931a)

  7. What is your proposal?

    Here’s mine: Dems filibuster at least one Supreme Court nominee, I win. They filibuster nobody, you win.

    Bottle not to exceed $20. I like Sterling Cabs.

    If you have a different suggestion, let me know.

    Patterico (756436)

  8. Patterico,

    I just sent out/posted the challenge. Cab is a fine substitution. I’ll add the $20 cap.

    Please respond in the comments at the post to go on record.

    Paul Deignan (ee931a)

  9. Nope, I can’t agree to your terms, because I would consider it a woeful loss if there were to be even one successful Supreme Court filibuster, at any point during the rest of GWB’s Presidency.

    Look at what happened when Bork was defeated — and that wasn’t even a filibuster.

    Extend the bet to cover the rest of his term in office, and stipulate that even one USSC filibuster is a failure, and you’ve got a deal. Otherwise, I can’t sign on.

    Patterico (756436)

  10. I cal extend the deal to the end of Bush’s term (this is generous since it is the Senators who are on record, not Bush, but that’s OK with me–I can wait until 2008 for a $20 bottle of wine).

    However, the question is then whether or not the “extraordinary” condition would kick in (and I interpret extraordinary in the common sense of the word). For that there needs to be a second filibuster that goes unanswered.

    Not to long ago you were pretty sure of yourself. Are you still sure?

    Paul Deignan (ee931a)

  11. I am not backing off of anything; I just don’t know that two Supreme Court nominations will occur during this Congress. And I believe the first nomination will sail through — remember?

    To me, any Supreme Court filibuster of any candidate whose name I have heard floated — including Alito, Luttig, Wilkinson, Edith Jones, Michael McConnell, and Janice Rogers Brown — would be extraordinary, and wholly unacceptable.

    Patterico (756436)

  12. You are aligning yourself with John Warner here — there has to be a *pattern.* Maybe that’s fine for you. For me, even one bad filibuster — at least of a Supreme Court nominee — will send me into paroxysms of rage.

    Patterico (756436)

  13. Patterico,

    Any judicial filibuster would fill the bill.

    I understand that the first USSC filibuster will cause concern. Sure, but it is not a real test of the deal. An unchallenged second filibuster of any nominee would prove you right in my book.

    What do you say?

    Paul Deignan (ee931a)

  14. I say what I have already said. If we allow the Dems to filibuster a single USSC nominee, it proves that this deal was a loser.

    Patterico (756436)

  15. Patterico,

    Preemptive nuking? Well, that would be a victory for those who are against judicial filibusters as a matter of principle but not a political victory for the GOP. Even before they would have only invoked the nuke option after a filibuster.

    Didn’t you say this was a political loss for the GOP?

    Remember, any individual can be renominated.

    Paul Deignan (ee931a)

  16. “I say what I have already said. If we allow the Dems to filibuster a single USSC nominee, it proves that this deal was a loser. ”

    Why, would they go nuclear on the supreme court?

    actus (3be069)

  17. Paul,

    I mean to successfully filibuster such a nominee, such that the nominee is rejected and someone else is picked.

    Patterico (756436)

  18. Patterico,

    That indeed would constitute a “cave” unless the nominee was a political ploy to elicit a filibuster. In this case you may or may not be right. To know for sure, we would need a second instance.

    If you are right, this second filibuster would be a sure bet and enough for all to agree with you.

    What do you have to lose?

    Paul Deignan (ee931a)

  19. Sorry, but I am not doing anything that remotely suggests that a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee could be an acceptable outcome.

    You sound like you think there very well may be one. If so, will you still maintain that the deal was such a great victory??

    Patterico (756436)

  20. Patterico,

    We have two things going on.

    1. To get conservative jurists on the bench.

    2. To retain political power in Congress (and the Presidency).

    The Dems may or may not filibuster the first USSC nominee depending on how the political situation shapes up, who steps down, and who is nominated. However, unlike the Bork situation, the GOP need not back down after the first filibuster. They can just put up the next strong conservative Catholic, Hispanic, Black, etc. etc. whoever they would like to use as a hammer to break down the Dem constituency. It is no coincidence that the first up to bat were women (Rodgers is a twofer) and Pryor (Catholic).

    So it takes more than one nominee to test the deal. The second filibuster would be seen as an abuse. Frankly, it is good for the GOP for the Dems to filibuster the first nominee. That would set them up for a hammer blow the second go around. At that point the Dems would be seen as extremists and obstructionists. After that, their objections would not be taken seriously by middle of the roaders.

    So, this is a significant political victory and effective victory.

    This is not the Bork situation.

    Paul Deignan (ee931a)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0698 secs.