If "moderates" reach a compromise where only 4 judges are confirmed...

[kentuck]

and the Repubs disavow doing away with the filibuster, would you consider that a victory? Personally, I would not. It is too close to blackmail. Or a bluff?

Why should we try to appease these fascists? Don't we remember Chamberlain from WWII? Do these "moderates" really think these Repubs would keep their word?

But, I don't think the Repubs will settle for 4 or 5 judges. They want them all. If they did accept the 4 judges, it would seem like a bluff all along. And the Democrats blinked...

I say, let them do it. Then we challenge every moderate Republican that votes with these radicals. None of them deserve a pass from the Democratic Party again. Those should be the first Senators we go after - the so-called "moderates". They are not trustworthy. At least with the hard core right-wingers, we can say they probably believe they are doing the right thing. The moderates know better but still vote the "party line"... They need to be replaced.

[usregimechange]

1. I say change the filabuster rule because it will really suck when

we take the Senate in 2006. Bye bye Jim Talent and Wacktorum!

No, I wouldn't do that but I would consider such a compramise a loss.

[tritsofme]

4. We wouldn't be able to take advantage of their rule change until 2008

at the earliest.

We would need a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President in order to benefit from the elimination of the filibuster on judicial nominees.

[MAlibdem]

7. we'll pick up 7 seats in 2006

minimum.

[tritsofme]

13. I doubt we pick up 7 seats

I don't see any way we get there.

Either way, it wouldn't matter in terms of the judicial filibuster, because if we were in the majority with a Republican President we could use the same tactics they used against Clinton and we wouldn't need to filibuster. That's all I'm saying.

[MAlibdem]

14. fair enough

(about the judiciary committee tactic)

[tritsofme]

15. That would be one of our options.

Regaining the majority in the Senate would give a plethora of options in regards to judicial nominees.

We could deny them a committee hearing, vote them down in committee, or reject them outright on the Senate floor.

With majority power, Bush would be forced to consult with Democrats, the way it has traditionally been done.

Being in the Majority comes with many powers, and I do sorely hope we regain it in 2006.

[bububjones]

2. as of right now we don't need to compromise

If the moderate Republicans and those who have said that they might vote against the filibuster bill vot against the filibuster bill, we will win, but that's asuming that they vote against it and thousnds of e-mails have been sent into them encouraging them to vote for it. We need to strike back! at http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bububjones/ there's links to key senator's contact pages.

[biscotti]

3. No compromise

We can't trust them at all.

[election_2004]

5. You're wrong about one thing.....

The senators we should go after in 2006 are Rick Santorum, Conrad Burns, and Jim Talent.....not the "so-called moderates."

It will be easier to get Snowe or Chafee on our side when/if Stevens or O'Connor retire prior to 2008.

Also, if the Republicans do eliminate the filibuster, they will just change the rules back to protect themselves during a "lame duck" session prior to the Democrats regaining the U.S. Senate.

[kentuck]

6. But the moderates have been eating at our table..

We have helped to nourish them. If they don't appreciate that, they should go first, in my opinion. However, the names you mention should also be on the list.

[bryant69]

8. Depends on what the goal is

IF the goal is to preserve the Filibuster, and this plan would preserve the filibuster I'd probably support it. The filibuater is the only way that Democrats are going to have a voice on who President Bush selects for the Next Supreme Court Justice. Now I doubt we are going to be happy with any of his selections, but certainly a situation where he has to consider Democrat opinions is bettr than one in which he doesn't.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[kentuck]

9. But the plan is to pave the way for a Supreme Court Justice..

that cannot be filibustered by the Democrats? No filibustering of judge nominees, especially Supreme Court nominees...So I doubt they would go along with that aspect of a "compromise". Anything else is simply a surrender by the Democrats, in my opinion.

[bryant69]

11. That';s the grounds of the comporomise

If we would agree to not filibuster the Supreme court nominee this fight would probably end almost immediately. If we finally end up agreeing to that, well, that's a betrayal.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[kentuck]

12. If they agree to a compromise, that means they don't have the votes...

They have no intention of compromising. If they want to compromise, Democrats should be very wary...

[zanne]

16. True. Also, compromise now and bring it up again later.

If there is a compromise, it will be because the Republicans can just bring out the nuclear option again when it comes time for Supreme Court nominations. I think we've learned not to put anything past them.

[Lochloosa]

10. One problem with that approch

What is to stop the Neocons from changing the rules when it comes time to vote on a SCJ?

No compromise! I think the repubs have unzipped their fly on this one. If they change the rules, all hell will break lose in '06. IMO.