Why DeWine Is Wrong
Why DeWine Is Wrong
Speaking at the press conference yesterday, Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) argued that the agreement allowed him to change his mind at any time if he didn’t like how the filibuster was being used. DeWine said:
[I]f an individual senator believes in the future that a filibuster is taking place under something that’s not extraordinary circumstances, we of course reserve the right to do what we could have done tomorrow which is to cast a yes vote for the constitutional option.
But that’s not what the agreement says. Section IIB provides: “In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress.” Section IIA makes clear that senators maintain their commitment to the agreement as long as they only filibuster in “extraordinary circumstances,” a determination to be based on their “own discretion and judgment.”
So DeWine can’t go nuclear simply because *he* decides the filibuster is being used in something other than “extraordinary circumstances.” Rather, based on the language of the agreement, the deal would only dissolve if senators filibuster without making a good faith determination — based on their “own discretion and judgment,” not DeWine’s discretion and judgment — that there were extraordinary circumstances.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
We all know that this particular group of Republicans are physiologically and idealogically incapable of keeping their word.
This battle will shape-shift continuously. Starting today, I’ll be doing two things:
1) Writing about the heinous recess appointments that I know are coming from Bush, now that he feels he didn’t get 100% on this deal, and
2) Writing about the inevitable moment when Repubs go back on their word, and decide it’s their definition of ‘extreme circumstances’ that counts.
The fact that we’ve got the words on paper means nothing with these guys. It’s the political equivalent of toilet paper.
May 24th, 2005 at 10:38 amYeah, but try to enforce that.
May 24th, 2005 at 10:41 amVictoria, I don’t know what you’re complaining about, the Dems got a fantastic deal. So far, they’ve stopped 7 nominees (including Haynes and Kavanaugh, who are both goners) and preserved the filibuster. Hard to believe the Republicans rolled over like this, but you should be dancing in the street
May 24th, 2005 at 11:52 amRobert,
May 24th, 2005 at 12:28 pmThe filibuster is preserved only for as long as the Republicans get their way. Once they don’t get their way, when the Democrats resort to a filibuster again, the filibuster will die, and we all know that. Only this time the press will accuse the Democrats of reneging on the agreement and we Democrats will gain nothing from the GOP violation of Senate rules. No one is dancing in the street here, nor should they. Oh, and Bush will get 100% of his judicial appointments approved from now on.
Well, Robert… don’t misunderestimate my meaning here… I don’t think this was the horror to end all horrors. We’ve still got the filibuster in theory, and some judges are off the table for now. Dems made the best deal they could under the circumstances.
Here’s my problem: You’re assumption is that because we have a deal on paper that Repubs will stick to it.
We have Senate rules on paper, and they were willing to hurl them out the window. SO, I’ll skip the dancing now, and move ahead to the moment that I perceive to be inevitable, which is the moment when Repubs hold a news conference explaining why the deal does not apply in situation A, B, or C…
Or why “the situation has changed” and they’re gonna go nuclear.
Or why “fill in the blank” requires a revisiting of the nuclear issue…
I think the Dems did the best they could. But, and this is a big but, that does not mean that Republicans will keep their word.
May 24th, 2005 at 2:54 pmMy reading of section IIB is that rules change by way of the nuclear option will not happen in the 109′th under any circumstances. If a filibuster is attempted under “extraordinary circumstances” the normal 60-vote cloture rules apply and enough of the of the signatories must agree to oppose cloture.
May 24th, 2005 at 3:40 pmLindsey Graham echoed DeWine’s comments today. Hmmm…
May 24th, 2005 at 3:55 pmBut what about the silence on whether the Senate can change the rules for the 110th Congress????
May 24th, 2005 at 3:58 pmAnd by rules change, I don’t mean the nuclear option, but rather the abandonment of the notion of an “ongoing” Senate and instead deciding at the beginning of each new session what the rules will be????
May 24th, 2005 at 4:00 pmDeWine must have had his fingers crossed behind his back. The Repugs act like a bunch of schoolyard bullies. I wonder if DeWine is a rare coin collector, seeing as he IS from Ohio.
May 24th, 2005 at 11:31 pmI agree with Robert here Victoria. Think for a second how badly we conservatives lost here.
Our Majority leader just got bitch slapped publicly by 7 members of his caucus. Effectivly he’s just the largest minority leader now with 48 votes.
Despite the grass roots anger hes going to have a tough time triggering the option again unless your side really overplays their hand. Even then the mainstream media will crush him and anyone who defects from the gang of 14.
We got the 3 most talked about nominees. We lost 7 potentially. We have to trust in what Schummer and others on your side are going to consider extreme. Theres no one we could nominate who wouldn’t be found extreme! Unlike how we treated Ginsburg who couldn’t be more out of the mainstream.
Please spare me your outrage on how bad you got hosed here. With control of the house, senate and presidency we can’t get a nominee passed without having OUR Senators snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!
You won this round if not the fight, don’t be upset it wasn’t a shutout, go salsa on the sidewalk.
May 25th, 2005 at 2:09 pmThe reason that there is at least a fighting chance that the seven Republican signatories will keep there word is this:
Under the terms of the agreement, they have pledged to oppose an attempt to force a vote on a judicial nominee by means of a motion that requires less than 60 votes to pass. There are NO explicit conditions to that pledge other than the agreement on the specific nominees involved.
There is, perhaps, an implicit condition in that the seven Democratic signatories have agreed that they will not filibuster unless, in the exercise of their judgment and discretion, “extraordinary circumstances” justifying a filibuster exist. The agreement explicitly recognizes that each individual Senator has the right, the power and the responsibility to make that determination for himself or herself.
If, therefore, this aspect of the agreement creates a condition that the Republican signatories can use as a rationale for breaking their pledge, the condition would be that the seven signatories use their judgment and discretion in determining whether to filibuster. Thus, to renege on this agreement, the Republican signatories would have to publicly accuse the seven Democratic signatories of lying when they say that, in their considered opinion, the nomination justifies a filibuster. Not just that the Democratic signatories are incorrect. The signatories have agreed to protect the right of each Senator to make that decision for himself or herself. A senator who decides sincerely but incorrectly acts within the spirit of the agreement. The reneging Republican(s) would have to accuse all seven Democrats of lying, of failing to live up to their obligation to use their judgment and discretion.
Will that stop the Republican signatories from reneging? Anyone who says they know the answer to that question likely knows a hell of a lot less than they think they know. I do know this: Accusing ONE of one’s colleagues of lying in a matter of such importance as this is serious, serious business. A colleague so accused is unlikely to harbor the sort of feelings for the accuser that will allow the accused to cooperate with the accuser in future matters in which such cooperation benefits the accuser. Alienating seven colleagues in this manner would seem ill-advised, especially given that these seven are among the most likely on the Democratic side of the aisle to feel disposed to cooperate with a Republican colleague to begin with.
Is that enough to stop these guys? Maybe not. But the fact that these Senators have personal relationships with each other counts for something. If it were the House of Representatives, where personal relationships like those in the Senate seem to carry much less weight, I’d be a lot more worried about a betrayal. But because it is the Senate and because the agreement requires any Republican who wants to renege to publicly accuse seven colleagues of such serious misconduct, I think the chances that this agreement will stick are pretty good. Certainly worth the relatively low price the Democrats paid.
May 25th, 2005 at 11:02 pmWhoops! The Democrats may only need four of the seven signatories to decide to support a filibuster to survive a cloture vote. So the Republicans may be able to get by with only accusing four Democratic colleagues of lying. So everything I said above still counts, but maybe only four-sevenths as much. If all seven Democrats draw the same conclusion, no recalculation will be necessary.
Houndcat regrets the error.
May 25th, 2005 at 11:37 pmbest keen shoes
best keen shoes The keen shoes of the Sthickles of Ashbornham was again cold, the thermometer noising to 27 shell-men, and we
October 7th, 2005 at 8:07 am2289
Please take a look at some helpful info dedicated to 1247
November 3rd, 2005 at 10:49 am908
You are invited to visit some relevant pages in the field of 201
November 5th, 2005 at 3:37 pmgirls reveal
You can also take a look at some relevant pages in the field of chubby girls cum porn pictures
November 6th, 2005 at 11:12 pmhairy girls
In your free time, visit some relevant pages on girls butt in tight jeans hardcore sex galleries
November 20th, 2005 at 2:26 pmlearn to spread trade
shakers L’vov?hotels optical bank of canada exchange rates http://www.realestatehotbuys.com/bank-of-canada-exchange-rates.html
November 23rd, 2005 at 8:56 pmristorante casoli ..
January 25th, 2007 at 7:39 pmDelete this spam!
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:15 am