BREAKING: Senators Strike Filibuster Deal
BREAKING: Senators Strike Filibuster Deal
McCain describes the details:
We’re here, 14 Republicans and Democrats, seven on each side, to announce that we have reached an agreement to try to avert a crisis in the United States Senate and pull the institution back from a precipice that would have had, in the view of all 14 of us, lasting impact, damaging impact on the institution.
I’m grateful for the efforts of Senator Frist and Senator Reid to come to an agreement on this issue. We appreciate very much their leadership. And we all appreciate each other’s involvement, but probably the two that I’d like to point out here that provided us with a beacon of where we should go is Senator Byrd, our distinguished senior Democrat leader, and Senator Warner who both were vital to this process.
You have before you the agreement and I won’t go in the details of it. But basically, all 14 of us have pledged to vote for cloture for the judicial nominees Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor and Priscilla Owen.
The signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on two judges, William Myers and Henry Saad. Future nominations will — the signatories will exercise their responsibilities and the nominees should only be filibusters under extraordinary circumstances.
And in light of this commitment and a continuing commitment, we will try to do everything in our power to prevent filibusters in the future.
This agreement is meant in the finest traditions of the Senate it was entered into: trust, respect and mutual desire to see the institution of the Senate function in ways that protect the rights of the minority.
So I’m very pleased to stand here with my other colleagues tonight and I believe that that good-will will prevail.
Nothing in this agreement prevents any individual senator from exercising his or her individual rights.
I would like to ask Senator Nelson and Senator Pryor, but I want to, again, thank my colleagues. And I believe that most Americans would like for us to work these issues out rather than pursue the procedure that we have just departed from, I hope.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I don’t like it. If these judges are bad, they should be rejected.
May 23rd, 2005 at 8:09 pm“The signatories will exercise their responsibilities and the nominees should only be filibusters [sic] under extraordinary circumstances.”
I’m disappointed that this statement made it into Senator McCain’s remarks. It’s just a subtle way of saying that the Democrats have been heretofore misusing and abusing their right to filibuster judicial nominees.
I would say that these are, and have been, “extraordinary circumstances.”
May 23rd, 2005 at 8:18 pmThis means a few “moderate” Democrats caved in. The Republicans gave up nothing and the Democrats agreed to allow a vote on some extremely poor choices for judges. Disgusting, but about what I expected from those Democrats.
May 23rd, 2005 at 8:21 pmOnce again, the Democrats prove to be the party of the wimp. This was a fight in which they had nothing to lose. They’re already in the minority. The judges are reprehensible and the public opinion polls showed support for the Democrats. Why compromise and give Frist a victory he might not have achieved or which, at best, would have been pyrrich? And what happens the next time Frist decides that a circumstance isn’t “extraordinary”? I’m embarrassed to support this party.
May 23rd, 2005 at 8:23 pmThey are giving up. What a bunch of assholes….
May 23rd, 2005 at 8:35 pmUhm…I think this is a complete win for the Dems. GOP caves on the three worst of the lot. Since filibusters are only employed in “extraordinary circumstances” I fail to see how this changes anything. The filibuster is the check on stupid Presidential appointments and will remain so.
May 23rd, 2005 at 8:42 pm** NUCLEAR FREEZE! **
AP has reported that the Senate 12 have brokered an 11th hour deal to avert a showdown over the nuclear option.
The deal announced by Senator John McCain preserves the Democrats right to filibuster, but gives Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor a vote on the Senate floor.
If the early blogosphere feedback is any indication, the Right and Left share a common sense of rage and betrayal at the outcome:
- “Cowards. A Bunch of M-Fing Cowards!!!! “Trust”? This Is A Nightmare.” (Ankle-Biting Pundits)
- “‘Bipartisan’Group Caves To Liberals” (Ace of Spades)
- “Disappointing, I’m Afraid” (Powerline)
- “I don’t know about you, but I don’t like it.” (Atrios)
- “Beating Frist on the procedural vote may’ve been the best option. But the worst option was too horrible to contemplate.” (DailyKos)
- “The Dewine Caveat” (Think Progress)
For the right, Bill Frist missed a golden opportunity to enshrine a conservative judicial future and to castrate Democratic opposition in the Senate. For many Democrats, this tenuous deal depends on the good faith of a set of Republican counterparts like McCain and Lindsey Graham, certainly not the safest position to be in. As a matter of principle, the Democrats now face the prospect of accepting previously unacceptable judges.
May 23rd, 2005 at 8:47 pmI dont’ think the Dems would have agreed if it meant they think Owens and Brown will be confirmed.
May 23rd, 2005 at 8:49 pmDeal Reached
Around 8pm on Monday, 14 Senators, said a deal was made, here are some of the details from Think Progress
The signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on two judges, William Myers and Henry Saad. Future nominations will – the si…
May 23rd, 2005 at 8:51 pmTo me, the most important element of the deal is that changes to the Senate’s rules will not be allowed with a simple majority (51 votes). That means Cheney is blocked from grinning his fat grin while casting the tie-breaker for the Nuclear Option. Changing Senate rules will still require a two-thirds vote (67), and that is a good thing.
May 23rd, 2005 at 8:53 pmDems cave on the 3 worst, Marblex, not GOP. Still lots of vague and imprecise language being floated about this so-called compromise deal.
Probably it’s better than “a sharp stick in the eye”, but it’s too soon to say how much better.
May 23rd, 2005 at 8:54 pmMyers and Saad are the most horrendous, mostly because they have not only a activist heritage, but are clearly corrupt. Owen and Brown are more libertarian than religious right, and Pryor is already serving, and has been for a while. None of these judges political philosophies actually change the ratios in the courts upon which they will serve. They are highly activist and anti-abortion and pro-business, but they aren’t as corrupt and vile as Myers and Saad.
May 23rd, 2005 at 9:02 pmDisagree Stephen, again, no way would the Dems have agreed to cloture on these three IF they didn’t have the votes on the floor to defeat them. I think Brown, the worst of the lot is definitely not going to get confirmed and I have very serious doubts about Owens. Give Reid credit, willya? There’s a reason he cherry picked these three for cloture and a floor vote — he must be pretty darn sure they’ll go nowhere on the floor. Obviously we’ll wait and see. But without such an agreement, I can’t see the benefit for either team.
May 23rd, 2005 at 9:10 pmDems – stop complaining. We don’t know why they went to the table and accepted this deal. Maybe, at the end of the day, Reid didn’t have the votes. Would you rather have Dobson picking the next Supreme Court justice? I wouldn’t. And I don’t know many Democrats who would.
But, we’ve already seen Dems says the party had “nothing to lose” and should have pushed the issue. One logical outcome of this is a Dobson justice. With this deal, we don’t seem to get that.
Besides, let’s remember that Dems HAVEN’T filibustered over 200 of Bush’s nominees, so refusing to filibuster except in extreme circumstances doesn’t seem much different than what’s going on now.
Bottom line: the Senate tradition has been saved, the American taliban is likely to abandon Frist because of this, and we keep the option of filibustering extreme judges. It’s probably the best we could have hoped for.
May 23rd, 2005 at 9:10 pmI don’t like it at all… mainly because I don’t trust the GOP to uphold their end of the compromise. Who gets to decide what the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ are? It’s SCOTUS that I’m most worried about. Watch the Right regroup then and this compromise will be long forgotten.
May 23rd, 2005 at 9:11 pmTo castigate Judge Saad as “corrupt and vile” is to demonstrate clearly that one knows little, if anything, about him. To the extent that one might consider any of these judges “controversial,” Judge Saad, along with his fellow Michigan nominees, Judges Griffin, McKeague, and Neilson, are probably the least objectionable.
May 23rd, 2005 at 9:17 pmSomeone needs to list who the signatories were; also, people need to recognize what Court does what and Brown on U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C. Circuit IS truly a disaster; the class action law recently passed is but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to consumer rights.
May 23rd, 2005 at 9:28 pmThis is not a ‘win-win’ by any stretch of the imagination. In case no one remembers Plato:first is monarchy,then arisotcracy, then democracy,then chaos,then dictatorship.
We’re currently in the chaos stage(examine the financial ‘books’ of the U.S.,add in Iraq and Afghanistan) and Bush,et al would like dictatorship. They are getting closer all the time with the Democratic Party truly not having a ‘leader’ and those elected officials unwilling to’fall on their swords’ on principles. It’s why they keep losing elections.
Is no one encouraged by the specific language of the agreement, which includes an express invitation to POTUS to consult with the Senate BEFORE making nominations in order to avoid future confrontations. This agreement also and significantly frees moderate GOPers to vote their conscience on the three most extreme, Owens Brown and Pryor.
May 23rd, 2005 at 9:35 pmThis is not a compromise — this is a total capitulation to the far right-wing extremists. It seems the Democrat Party is no longer willing to stand up and fight for principles we hold dear. For Democrats to agree to such a deal is sickening.
May 23rd, 2005 at 11:32 pm“Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must his or her own discretion and judgement in determining whether such circumstances exist.”
May 23rd, 2005 at 11:50 pmThe above is the verbatim langauge of the agreement. Much, much leeway is given to Senators to support a Supreme Court filibuster.
The most credibible interpretation of this deal is that it postpones an inevitable vote on a permanent rules change. And remember, Owen, Brown, and Pryor will gain much more visibility as their nominations move to a vote. As McCain alluded (today, I think), one or more of these three might be defeated outright.
May 23rd, 2005 at 11:54 pmThe worst part of it is having to see the ugly mug of Joe Lieberman gaping in front of the camera representing the democrats. Ugh!
He says he will probably vote for Bolton. What a surprise. How did Al Gore pick this guy as a running mate? I hate Joe Lieberman more than castor oil.
May 24th, 2005 at 1:03 amThis deal does nothing for Democrats. It harms Democrats, and here’s how..
While postponing having to deal with the Republicans pulling the nuclear trigger, Bush and the Repubs get to ram through more of their rightwinger legislation, specifically more curtailment of civil rights in the Patriot Act II.
Democrats have been abiding by tradition that legislation must go through committees, which are Republican controlled. Had Republicans pulled the nuclear trigger, Democrats were going to end that tradition, and Democrats would have brought their own legislation to the floor that was supported by the people, such as health insurance legislation, education reform, prescription drug bill, etc.
Marblex asked:
‘Is no one encouraged by the specific language of the agreement, which includes an express invitation to POTUS to consult with the Senate BEFORE making nominations in order to avoid future confrontations.’?
Today on the floor of the Senate, Republicans defined what is meant by their role to ‘advise and consent’ in the constitution. To them it means ‘once you tell the President who it is that you’d like to see nominated, the President then gets his say, nominates whom he wants, and the Senate must then consent.’
No, Marblex, I am not ‘encouraged.’
Marblex also said:
‘This agreement also and significantly frees moderate GOPers to vote their conscience on the three most extreme, Owens Brown and Pryor.’
How white, errr, democratic of the framers of this deal. To free senators to vote their conscience. It makes me wonder whose conscience they are usually voting.
May 24th, 2005 at 4:20 amLike any republicans are going to cast nay votes on any justice bush43 puts up. Ain’t gonna happen.
They made it sound lofty. It’s not, it crawls in the dirt.
I expected more from our boys.
May 24th, 2005 at 10:34 amMortgage Rates and Refinance
January 1st, 2006 at 6:47 amMortgage Farmers Mortgage Rates
Refinance Mortgage Refinance Mortgage Rates
Refinance Online
Compare mortgage rates
Delete this spam!
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:11 am