« Is Ramesh Coming Around? | Main | Azerbaijan's New Pipeline »
May 26, 2005
More Senate Realism
Over at Redstate.org Doverspa has a great analysis of the Senate compromise:
[The deal] perserves the filibuster which is generally a friend of conservatives and does not take us on the first step toward eliminating all filibusters. It sets a standard for when judicial filibusters are acceptable and that standard is high. Most likely Supreme Court nominees will not be filibustered unless they are unqualified (i.e. not judges) or disturbing enough that they wouldn't even pass an up-or-down vote in the first place.
One thing that bugged me about invoking the Constitutional option is that (correct me if I'm wrong) it would have squelched the use of the filibuster for any legislation, and I'm not down with that. The precedent was for judicial nominees to not be filibustered; I was never on board with banishing the filibuster for any type of legislation--who knows what the future will bring?
Doverspa goes on to chastise those who talk of witholding contributions to the RNC, noting quite correctly that holding and increasing the Republican majority in the Senate is the surest way to render this whole episode moot.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.thebernoullieffect.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/163
Comments
Oh Jeff, the Constitutional Option? I expected better from you. It was your own folks who came up with "the nuclear option."
Posted by: Fargus at May 26, 2005 06:40 AM
Yeah, that was Trent Lott I believe; and he's been properly slammed by quite a few conservatives for coming up with that. I can see why Democrats object to calling it something else--as it stands "nuclear option" is a PR gold mine for them and the MSM.
"Constitutional option" does have some basis in fact, in that the Constitution explicitly allows the Senate to make its own rules.
Posted by: Jeff at May 26, 2005 09:47 AM
I don't know. Smacks a bit of the same thing that allows politicians to say they're against privatization, but for "personal accounts," when really they're the same exact thing, and the original term was polling badly.
Posted by: Fargus at May 26, 2005 09:55 AM
I know this is a quite dated post, but I wanted to point out that this is incorrect:
"...it would have squelched the use of the filibuster for any legislation"
The Constitutional/Nuclear Option would have only done away with the filibuster for judicial nominations. Legislative filibusters would be permitted. The main difference being that one can compromise on most legislative duties, but one cannot compromise on a yes/no vote for a nominee.
Posted by: doverspa at July 4, 2005 11:10 PM
I asked to be corrected, and so I was! Thanks for the clarification, and to me it makes the Dems' hysteria even more repugnant.
Seems like a long time ago now, doesn't it?
Posted by: Jeff at July 4, 2005 11:57 PM
