May 1, 2005

BUT VERIFY:

Let's Make a Deal (DAVID BROOKS, 5/01/05, NY Times)

Bill Frist should have taken the deal.

Last week, the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid, made an offer to head off a nuclear exchange over judicial nominations. Reid offered to allow votes on a few of the judges stuck in limbo if the Republicans would withdraw a few of the others.

But there was another part of the offer that hasn't been publicized. I've been reliably informed that Reid also vowed to prevent a filibuster on the next Supreme Court nominee. Reid said that if liberals tried to filibuster President Bush's pick, he'd come up with five or six Democratic votes to help Republicans close off debate. In other words, barring a scandal or some other exceptional circumstance, Reid would enable Bush's nominee to get a vote and probably be confirmed.

Reid couldn't put this offer in writing because it would outrage liberal interest groups. Frist said he'd think about it, but so far he's let it drop - even though clearing the way for a Supreme Court pick is one of the G.O.P. goals in this dispute


It's easy enough to test whether Mr. Reid is serious--just have a vote on a rule change to bar filibusters of Supreme Court justices.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 1, 2005 7:37 AM
Comments

Typical Brooks - completely ignore the principle and focus on the dealmaking. Reid doesn't have a leg to stand on to defend the Dem obstructionism so why should Frist cut a deal that would prevent some nominees from getting a vote? Also, for Frist to accept the deal would have undercut the GOP mantra that everyone deserves a vote.

Posted by: AWW at May 1, 2005 12:07 PM

For that matter, given their past behavior, would you trust a verbal promise of future behavior from the Democratic party leadership? I sure wouldn't.

Posted by: Kyle Haight at May 1, 2005 2:03 PM

I'm with Kyle - I don't even understand what it is that Reid might have been promising. If Bush nominiates Karl Rove to the Supreme Court, does Reid think he can find six Democrats to back him?

Or was the promise something along the lines of "I'll find six votes if the nomination is someone reasonable"? If so, what does that mean in practice?

Posted by: Tom Maguire at May 1, 2005 3:36 PM

"Reid also vowed to prevent a filibuster on the next Supreme Court nominee. Reid said that if liberals tried to filibuster President Bush's pick, he'd come up with five or six Democratic votes to help Republicans close off debate."

Sure. Just wait. The nomination of a reliable conservative to replace Rhequist will open the flood gates. Reid won't be able to find his hat.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at May 1, 2005 4:16 PM

Like yeah, right, we can trust the democrats.

The very fact that this article was printed is proof of a trap: The NYT reporters are partisian enough to have held the story until after the nominees were dropped and the others voted in. Publishing the story would give the liberal interest groups time to put pressure on Reid and he'd back off. Promise the moon to close the deal, then back away from the deal while protesting that they, themselves, were betrayed and misconstrued.

Frist did the right thing in giving this trial balloon the silent treatment.

Probably the ONLY thing he's done right so far...

Posted by: Ptah at May 1, 2005 8:18 PM
« WHAT ABOUT THE NORTHERN FRONT?: | Main | DOWN LOW LOWDOWN: »