I would bet a bottle of gin that not one in five American adults could tell you what a "filibuster" is. Perhaps one in ten Americans think it's important, and that ten percent is scattered across the political spectrum. This is after weeks of public discussion about the proper use of the filibuster and the "nuclear option" (i.e., voting when the majority decides to vote).
But the chattering classes care about the filibuster, because it is the method by which the Democrats' dwindling minority gets to keep "religious extremists" and pro-lifers off the Federal bench. The Republicans could have given Senator "Ku Klux Klam" Byrd the smackdown he richly deserves, pleased the GOP's most fervent supporters, and made the judiciary more friendly toward economic rights, less friendly toward judge-made law, and possibly made some progress toward stopping the secular sacrament of abortion. The cost? Some nasty editorials in liberal newspapers. But those editorialists hate Republicans anyway, and would find something else nasty to say about them.
Yet a small group of Republicans managed to sell out their party, not to mention the constitutional principle that the Senate has a duty to examine and confirm judicial nominees. Even though they've been in the majority for most of the last decade, the Republicans once again demonstrate that they play like amateurs, and the Democrats play for keeps.
This comment is all you need to know about this deal:
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said her group was "heartened that the crisis has been averted and the right to filibuster preserved for upcoming Supreme Court nominations. We are confident that a Supreme Court nominee who won't even state a position on Roe v. Wade is the kind of 'extraordinary circumstance' this deal envisions."
What's the problem? Three of five judges get up or down votes, and the Democrats agree to use the filibuster only "under extraordinary circumstances." It looks to me like everybody wins. The Republicans get their up or down vote, and the Democrats get to reserve the filibuster for very serious circumstances in which the tyranny of the majority should not force certain judges on the American people.
I'd also point out that perhaps these moderate Republicans were concerned about being able to use the filibuster when (not if) they are back in the minority. It is a political inevitability that the Republican Party will end up back in the congressional minority, and it may occur with a Democratic President in office. What if the Republicans need to filibuster a rabidly pro-choice nominee to the Supreme Court? If they eliminate the filibuster now, they're not going to be able to bring it back again later without looking like extraordinary hypocrites.
I think the seven Republican senators, including 100% pro-life rating from National Right to Life Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), were thinking about the long term. Hopefully pro-lifers will consider this possibility before unleashing their reign of political terror against these senators.
A couple of questions for you, Eric:
1) Whose economic rights are these nominees going to make the judiciary more friendly toward?
2) Why is it that seven of the nine Supreme Court justices are Republican appointees, but you're still clinging desperately to the hope that Republican appointed Supreme Court justices will magically overturn Roe v. Wade?
Pro-lifers haven't been claiming a right to filibuster pro-abortion judges, but they will now. Nobody filibustered Justice Ginsberg because of her relationship with NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund -- she had filed several briefs on their behalf.
This deal, if it goes through, establishes that filibusters are acceptable for any appointee one considers sufficiently unacceptable. Senators have little enough self-restraint as it is, and tearing down another piece of it will hurt the functioning of the constitutional order.
The only ones "unleashing their reign of political terror" are the pro-abortionistas. See Nancy Keenan's statement above.
Man, I used to think Mark Shea was joking about the "evil party and the stupid party"
He was right, what a stupid sell out.
Nathan, I like you, and you always have something interesting to say. But "tyrrany" is a word that means something. Specifically: "oppressive power exerted by government." Surely you don't think the president (elected by popular vote) and the Senate (ditto) are "oppressive" by nominating and confirming Federal judges?
I would love to see what you call a "reign of political terror" directed against sellout Republicans every once in a while. It won't happen, though, and that's the point -- political narcissists like Senator McCain get their media adulation free of cost. He won't lose his seat on any committee, and the Republican Party won't refuse to help his re-election campaign. He gets to be "courageous" without taking any actual risk.
What I wrote was that better judges might "possibly make some progress toward stopping the secular sacrament of abortion." I don't hope that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned "magically," but it could be reversed incrementally -- and the only way to do that is if Republicans get better judges on the bench. Or they could be nominated by a pro-life Democrat who thinks the law is about justice and not wielding power, but electing one of those would truly involve magic.
As for economic rights, I don't know where you get the (implied) idea that they have to be slanted towards any group. Legal rights are primarily for the poor and the powerless. The rich can always hire somebody to enforce their will.
It is really WAY past time we started asking why the pro-death fanatics have so much more strength of commitment than anybody in politics in our camp, whatever party. The political price for the sellouts here ought not be steep but precipitous.
In fact, it is high time for a real third party movement along the lines of a Christian Democrat Party to get started.
Kyle, my working theory is that since political liberals tend to be secularists, they see politics as the only possible venue to establish justice. Not having the confidence that the Lord will set things right at the end of time, they think this life is our only shot, and act accordingly. The other reason is that liberalism holds that the state should be the primary, if not the only agent of social improvement.
I don't think I'd support forming a party along confessional lines. First of all, it's impractical: there aren't enough Christians who are willing to vote as Christians. Even if it were, I'm skeptical of our ability to stamp anything temporal and contingent as "Christian." To put in concrete terms, we can be entirely sure that fighting to protect the unborn is a Christian act. Repealing the death tax is a little more hazy.
Sorry, Eric, I don't buy that. Protecting the unborn is the popular position. Defending the sanctity of marriage is the popular position.
In the case of abortion, it's also a grave, literally, problem -- 3,500 murders a day. And yet the people merely defending "choice" do so with a zeal more profound than anything our supposedly pro-life representatives can muster. They outspend us. They enforce a rigid doctrinal orthodoxy. They are willing to be unpleasant about it.
You don't like the idea of a "confessional" political party? Fine. I don't like the idea of supporting a party that panders for my vote but clearly doesn't give a shit about saving unborn children, pardon my French.
Hell hath no fury like a values voter scorned.
Oh, but hey! What's a million innocent victims of homicide a year compared to Social Security reform and tax cuts and sticking a finger in the eye of the UN and making it harder for people to declare bankruptcy or collect overtime?
At least the president will phone in a couple of nice phrases about the "Culture of Life" to a pro-life rally next January. Maybe.
Coming soon to a political party near you: "Sell Out II: Revenge of the Stem Cells."
Oops, I forgot. It's "Sell Out CVXI" or whatever it is. Souter, Kennedy, O'Connor, Specter I, Specter II, Stem Cells I, "the culture isn't ready," "I don't think a marriage amendment will pass" ....
Kyle, please try to combine your thoughts into a single comment, because otherwise they are hard to read.
Given the restrictions imposed by the Supreme Court in Roe, what would you have the president do? Any direct challenge to the Court's self-proclaimed, extra-legal authority would be deeply unpopular, even if Bush was legally and morally correct. The media would construe it as an attack on the Constitution, even if there is nothing in that document authorizing the Court to protect the "right" to abortion at all costs.
I would have the president:
1) actually show up at pro-life events
2) push his colleagues in the Senate to confirm his judicial nominees with at least as much "political capital" as he uses to push pre-emptive wars and tax cuts
3) not shy away from talking about the defense of human life as though it's some kind of liability
4) push for impeachment of extremist justices like Ginsburg, or at least demand she recuse herself from abortion cases, given her ties to fanatical groups that support the practice
5) push Congress to exercise its authority to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over abortion cases and marriage cases
6) push for a better head of the stinking judiciary committee than Arlen Specter
7) support pro-life candidates in elections, rather than those who like Arlen Specter who think murder is a constitutional right
8) actually push for a ban on human cloning instead of biting his lip
9) actually push for a marriage amendment after things like the latest outrage in Nebraska, rather than using it as a cudgel to get re-election and then telling reporters immediately after that it isn't going to pass and forgetting about it for the rest of his term
10) push to put an ultrasound machine in every crisis pregnancy clinic
11) push to shift funding from "family planning" agencies to crisic pregnancy clinics and launch a national campaign so women know how to find them -- many don't
12) when a husband is starving a wife to death, in addition to publicity stunts like flying back in the dead of night to sign an emergency bill, he could also, you know, use the powers of his office to protect her, even if it makes a Florida judge and the New York Times say something mean. If Clinton can do it to burn down some religious cult, at least Bush can do it to save a woman's life
13) when he does finally talk about life issues, actually make the case to the American people from the world's biggest bully pulpit, instead of simpering. There are reasons the "culture isn't ready" -- his and other Republicans' unwillingness to correct blatant disinformation put forth by the mainstream media is one of them
For instance: Bush, when asked at the signing of the partial-birth abortion ban if the culture was ready to ban abortion, basically responded that no, the culture was not ready yet. Well, duh.
Why not try this, Mr. President: "Well, no, the culture isn't ready to ban all abortions, and neither am I, quite frankly. But I'll tell you what both the culture and I am ready to do, and that's let the American people actually vote about abortion, and that's something an activist Supreme Court and so-called Democrats in Congress are not willing to let them do. Polls suggest most Americans are ready to ban late-term abortions and limit abortion to hard cases like the life of the mother and rape. But contrary to the way the media often presents it, Roe and its companion cases don't allow for any meaningful restrictions on abortion at any time of pregnancy. Even this ban on the most brutal and barbaric form of abortion is going to see a court challenge, and it might lose. You ask about the culture, and I turn the question back at you. If we really want to know what the culture thinks, why not let them vote on it? Isn't that what Democrats are all about?"
Why is that so hard? I'm starting to believe it's because he and most of the supposedly pro-life Republicans don't really have pro-life convictions. Rolling over on judges was NOT the way to prove me wrong.
Part of the problem is that Abortion is the only thing holding Dems together; whereas for Reps, there are other issues holding them together. Unfortunately, ones they seem to find more important. Another factor is the where else can you go problem. Or worse, if you don't vote for us, they will win problem. You've got one bullet, two attackers - you can shoot one to promote the other, or let them go at it on their own. Personally, I think a sound defeat or two at the hands of angry values voters might wake them up a bit - like walking out the door of the showroom. See if the salesman suddenly pays attention to you. While it will hurt in the short run, it may be the only hope for the long run.
I think everybody's making a big deal out of nothing. The majority is getting an up or down vote on their judicial nominees, and the minority can only use the filibuster on judicial nominees "under extraordinary circumstances" -- a phrase which is left entirely to the interpretation of the majority, who can declare that the minority has not kept their end of the deal at any time and change the rules if the minority doesn't keep up its side of the bargain.
Let's move on, shall we?
C Matt, your conclusion is right -- they do need a sound defeat at the hands of angry values voters. They need an electoral thrashing at the hands of values voters. If that doesn't happen, the "other things" holding Republicans together will always be more important than protecting the most fundamental of all human rights.
But doesn't that statement itself beg the question here? If they consider, say, private accounts for Social Security more important than defending the right to life -- and by their expenditure of political capital, that is self-evidently the case -- then they can't really believe what we believe about abortion, can they? So why do they talk as if they believe what we do? And more importantly, why should we trust them about anything they say?
That's why I increasingly think your "where are you going to go" line of thought -- which was mine, too, back in November -- is misguided. Which is worse? The known enemy who openly despises and attacks you? Or the hidden enemy who secretly despises you and always betrays you at the crucial moment while still trying to convince you he's your friend, seeing how long he can string you along?
Implying, as Eric did in this post, that it's a few bad apples in the GOP responsible for this looks to me like political spin. It's not just John McCain and Lindsay Graham. It's George W. Bush, Bill Frist and Rick Santorum, too.
It's the party that obstinately refuses to use its power and influence to advance doable things, that fawns over its "big tent" additions at its conventions, that puts Arlen Specter's re-election over millions of dear babies' lives. It's the GOP that fell all over itself the second week of November to distance itself from the "values voter" phenomenon after campaigning in the churches and hiring Deal Hudson for Catholic outreach. It's the people whose every word makes news who refuse to even attempt to correct the abortion propaganda squad in the media that keeps the culture from ever being quite ready to change.
Asking where else you are going to go presumes you have someplace to go. After this latest in 30 years of betrayals and failures, I think I'm going to have to have some reason to believe that's the case before I ever pull a level for a GOP candidate again. Right now, I feel like a big sucker.
I am so tired of Republicans who won't play hard ball especially with those who make up the culture of death. It didn't just start with this compromise. I can't even vote for my local state Republicans over the cloning issue. John Ashcroft wouldn't fight to save his senate seat when he should have done so. And even prolife stalwart Rick Santorum endorsed Arlen Specter against Pat Toomey in the Pennslyvania primary. When I give money or cast my vote, I am not going to ask if the candidate is pro-life, I am going to ask if they are willing to fight for life issues.
And you are right about most Americans not knowing what the whole deal was about. I was eating a great restaurant last night with my husband. My cell phone vibrated and thinking it was our babysitter, we answered. It turned out just to be a close friend wanting to know exactly what a filibuster was. This person is pro-life and I should have been the one to educate her on this issue before seven Republicans on the federal level caved.
For the record, Eric and myself have agreed on something.
gin == good.
In that case, Chuck, the next time you're in D.C., I'll buy you a gin-related drink, as long as you don't do anything that will break my heart, such as ordering a martini with sweet vermouth.
We don't need to move on...we need to move backwards...as the great Chesterton once remarked...Frist needs to deflate this 'poltiical' arrangement and let the air out of the so-called moderates...but he won't do anything...neither will Bush...neither will the republican base...one just has to admire the dems...they have no ideas, no vision, no charcter, no moral vision...no conscience....and they still win...gee...what does that tell us about the other side...hmm????
When it comes to pro-life issues, the Bushies are all hat and no cattle. They are interested in the pro-life vote, not the issues that pro-lifers stand for. My fantasy, frankly, is that a responsible pro-life Democrat will become a viable candidate (of course, I also believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus).
That said, Eric, I think you're overreacting. The deal means Bush gets 3 of his 5 judges through without problems, he throws two others under the bus, and ... nothing. The Republicans gave up nothing they can't get back later, while preserving something they may well want in the future (they will, at some point, be aa minority party again).
What will be interesting is to see how this deal holds up when Bush gets to nominate candidates for the Supreme Court. If he's not willing to call the pro-murder forces' bluff then, we're all in trouble. The only "values" the Bushies care about have dollar signs on them.
Funny, they keep talking about Owen as some sort of pro-life victory. As a Tx. Supreme Court Justice, the issue did not come before her very often, and then it was rather tangential (eg, notification laws vs. actual outright bans). I do not recall her ever really stating one way or the other whether she supports Roe in principal. I suppose part of that is "positioning" as well - wouldn't want to tip your hat until you are at the top lest it hurt your chances. But I fear she could become another O'Connor/Souter/Kennedy.
Of course, judicial appointment betrayals seem to be the GOP specialty - next to flat out mutiny on stem cells. It seems Bush's first test will be here shortly (although I don't see how a veto on ESCR funding really costs him anything - he's eventually gotta veto something - this would be good one to do it on).
It seems Bush's first test will be here shortly (although I don't see how a veto on ESCR funding really costs him anything - he's eventually gotta veto something - this would be good one to do it on).
FWIW, Bush has promised to veto the bill and while some lawmakers have apparently made noises about overriding such a veto, the house vote wasn't close to a two-thirds majority so that seems unlikely (for now).
The dirty martini is my drink.. and I just may take you up on that.