WP: Filibuster Deal Evaded Key Question on High Court Nominees

[kskiska]

Monday, May 30, 2005; A02

The fragile compromise that averted a Senate showdown over judicial filibusters last week deliberately left unanswered the crucial issue likely to be at the heart of a debate over a future Supreme Court vacancy: Can Democrats filibuster a nominee on the grounds that he or she is too conservative without triggering the "nuclear option"?

Republicans have argued that, if Priscilla R. Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William H. Pryor Jr. -- three of President Bush's nominees to the appellate courts who had been attacked by Democrats as out of the mainstream philosophically -- were suddenly given a filibuster-proof stamp of approval by the agreement, then no Bush nominee for a Supreme Court vacancy should face the threat of a filibuster because of judicial philosophy.

Whether that criterion falls outside the bounds of the "extraordinary circumstances" cited in the agreement as the only basis for judicial filibusters can be answered only by the seven Democrats and seven Republicans in the "Gang of 14" who negotiated and signed the agreement. The group, however, consciously avoided any serious bargaining on that critical point during their week of face-to-face discussions.

"We did not get into a definition of 'extraordinary' because we knew if we tried to do that we never would reach an agreement," Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) said in an interview.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/29/AR2005052900812.html

[Internut]

1. And for all the posters who said that the agreement

would allow only the democrats to decide which circumstances are "extraordinary":

"DeWine and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) have disputed the assertion by Reid and other Democrats that the nuclear option is off the table. DeWine said he explicitly raised the issue just before the group announced the deal on Monday night. "I said at the end, 'Make sure I understand this now, that . . . if any member of this group thinks the judge is filibustered under circumstances that are not extraordinary, that member has the right to vote at any time for the constitutional option.' Everyone in the room understood that."

Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), another member of the group, concurred, saying that while he hopes the nuclear option is gone for the duration of the 109th Congress, circumstances could bring it back. "I really think Senator DeWine and Senator Graham have it right," he said."

[AirAmFan]

3. Still drinking the Kool-Aid, I see. Mark WHO was spun as having said

WHAT? Harry Reid and Joe Lieberman are more likely to express the considered opinion of Democrats who'd denounce the 7 Rs for "breach of faith" and "going back on their word", wouldn't you think?

Mark Who seems to be 'off the reservation', but, if you read the article closely, he does not really say what you seem to think he says. Someday, all Democrats may learn how to speak with one voice like the Republicans, and to spin Washington Post stories their way as the Republicans almost always do.

You omitted Joe Lieberman's quote at the end of the article, which, like Reid's quote, does not agree with Mark WHO's:

'A statement from Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) on the future of the nuclear option offered enough ambiguity on whether judicial philosophy constitutes grounds for a filibuster to illustrate why, even within the Gang of 14, the future could be difficult. The statement came in response to a question about whether Reid or DeWine and Graham were properly interpreting the group's deal.

"Our agreement is based on mutual trust and respect among the 14 senators," Lieberman said. "We have the shared intention that the Democratic signers will not filibuster, except in extraordinary circumstances, and that the Republican signers will not invoke the nuclear option. I'm confident that the agreement will be honored and stand the test of time."' Filibuster Deal Evaded Key Question on High Court Nominees

See also http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1807089&mesg_id=1807089

[Internut]

4. According to the article,

at least 3 of the 14 - DeWine, Graham and Pryor - agree that if the Republican senators do not concur with the Democrats' "extraordinary circumstances" declaration, the nuclear option is back on the table. It only takes those 2 Republican senators to do that. Anyone else's opinion on the matter is completely irrelevant, because only the members of the 14 decide the matter. If 2 Republican senators out of those 7 vote for the "nuclear option", it passes. At that point, what Lieberman thinks about it is completely irrelevant.

[Nite Owl]

2. Last week moveon had

a conference call with Senator Reid he specifically said in reference to the 'extraordinary' phrase that we only used the filibuster under extraordinary circumstances anyway therefore nothing has changed. I hope that he will stick with this and the dems and the 7 republicans will too. Time will tell.

[Total Disaster]

6. If that's the case, then why did they allow Owen's nomination....

....to proceed to a vote? I thought (and still do) that she was extraordinary and so did Reid at one time. What the hell happened?

[Nite Owl]

7. He said that we are the

minority, we had to give that up, they needed something to save face. I'm not saying I agree with that just that that's what his reasoning was. It seemed that he was consulted and Frist wasn't which was interesting. I don't understand how these three were so terrible one day and then they were ok, that just doesn't make sense at all.

[bemildred]

5. There is no deal. It is complete bullshit. A stall.

It's not worth the paper it's written on.
Nothing is changed, the senate rules are the same, only the
Senator's involved agreed to anything. It amounts to a
position statement from a small faction of the senate.