WP: Fiery Words on Filibusters, But Also Talks on a Deal

[Pirate Smile]

Fiery Words on Filibusters, But Also Talks on a Deal

By Shailagh Murray and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, May 19, 2005; Page A01

The Senate opened a long-awaited debate on whether to ban filibusters of judicial nominees with vividly partisan attacks yesterday, as a small group of moderates worked behind the scenes for a compromise to avert the showdown.

Senators from both parties filled the chamber all day with impassioned speeches about their constitutional duty to give the president "advice and consent" on judicial nominees. Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) set the tone with an opening speech that said Democrats want to "kill, to defeat, to assassinate these nominees." Democrats denounced his remarks.

Even more intense action took place in small groups and closed meetings, as half a dozen GOP centrists, and an equal number of Democrats, tried to close a deal that would defuse the controversy. Aides familiar with the negotiations said they focused on two issues: the fate of seven pending appellate court nominees who were blocked from an up-or-down vote in Bush's first term and the more difficult issue of agreeing on how Democrats would treat the right to filibuster judicial nominees in coming months, when a Supreme Court vacancy might occur.

The "six and six" proposal, as it is called, would obligate Democratic signatories to forswear backing a filibuster against future judicial nominees except in extraordinary circumstances. In return, the six GOP signers would agree to vote against efforts to ban judicial filibusters, the aides said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/18/AR2005051800859.html

[Pirate Smile]

1. Here is who is involved in the compromise negotiations

"Senators participating in the negotiations included Democrats Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.), Mary Landrieu (La.) and Ken Salazar (Colo.). Republican negotiators included Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), John McCain (Ariz.), Mike DeWine (Ohio), John W. Warner (Va.), Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska). Warner hosted at least one meeting. "It's 200 years of tradition and precedent -- there are a lot of issues to consider," Snowe told reporters.

The White House is taking the position that it wants no compromise and is insisting on an up-or-down vote on each of its nominees."

[Voltaire99]

2. With moderates like these, who needs Republicans?

About the last meaningful thing the Democrats can do is block Bush's extremist judicial nominees.

Don't piss it away, you clowns.

[radfringe]

3. it'a about advising the dems to consent

advise and consent toon -- http://radfringe.tripod.com/

[LightningFlash]

4. Smoke and mirrors to me.

I can tell we have some smoke and mirrors here, to be frank. Fillibusters aren't likely to be compromised when one takes a look at the judges up for vote.

[tkmorris]

5. Jesus H. Christ

It's the bottom of the ninth, we're down by two, and this is our batting order? Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.), Mary Landrieu (La.) and Ken Salazar (Colo.).

The only one of the lot that I respect is Byrd, and IIRC he isn't too motivated on this particular issue.

This proposal looks bad on a number of levels, most notably Dems agreeing to filibuster "only in extraordinary circumstances". What the bloody hell does that mean? These 7 nominees ARE extraordinary circumstances; they are the 1 in 20 on average of Bush's nominees that we have deemed to be too extremist to be appointed. 1 out of 20 denied is FAR better than Clinton was able to get through the process, we are already getting our collective asses kicked here.

Don't give any more ground fellas. Die on this hill. Right here, right now. NO MORE!