But we have agreement, comity, which is the most important thing.

McCain, DeWine, Snowe, Warner, Graham, Collins and Chafee

Once again, the usual bunch putting the Stupid in the Stupid Party. But where's Specter, Hagel and Voinovich? Aren't they going to be annoyed they didn't get to be included?

A tad apocalyptic, David. It gets the three through who mattered to the bases of both parties. In particular, it gets the two who are likely Supreme Court nominees. When the Democrats filibuster Ms Brown for the Supreme Court you just go through the process at that point, when it's higher profile and quite deadly for the Democrats.

Apocalyptic? I thought I was being measured and statesmanlike. I was just over at DU and their consensus, after first treating the deal as a loss, is that they won. I agree with them.

Do you think that McCain or Frist could possibly win the nomination now?

Right on David.

I'm not sure what Frist can do. The 7 GOPers prevent the GOP from getting to 50. The barrage of phone calls/ads/other apparently didn't sway them. Nor did the supposed threats to their seniority on committees. Graham and Warner are the most dissapointing as they should know better.

The optimistics are taking OJ's view - that this gets 3 through and perhaps more and the nuclear option can be pulled later. We'll see.

The text of the agreement makes clear that, come what may -- including a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee -- the nuclear option is off the table for the entire 109th congress. So, we got these three, but we've given the Dems (or, at least, the six Dem signers) a veto on judicial appointees for the next year and a half. The practical effect is to let Robert Byrd veto President Bush's nominees.

It's over folks.

The silver lining. It's actually a small price to pay for ending McCain's presidential aspirations.

David, both DeWine and Graham hqve basically said that if any future nominee is filibustered, the nuke is back on the table. I know that is not their exact words, but that is the clear import of what they said, and they will be toast if they let the dems get away with another filibuster.

This is all about the S. Ct. Let me give you a hypothetical-- what happens if Bush sneds up Janic Rogers Brown's name to fill the next vacancy? No way they can sustain a filibuster against her and call it extraordinary circumstances. And the only judge in the United States of America to her right is Roy Moore!!

I am not a McCain fan, but I think he did yeoman's work on this. It was the rest of the President's agenda that would have been slow walked for the next few years. A fight over judges would have been worth it, but I think the outcome of the REAL fight is now predetermined.

We shall see, of course, but I am very happy.

Wow. Only a fool could be surprised by this, but it still feels like a steel-toed kick to the gut.

Where's that list of GOP hopefuls for '08? Cross every Senator off the list, as they all are either in this band of jokers or among the leadership and therefore too ineffectual to stop it.

Frist is done not just as a presidential hopeful but as a Senate leader. Why should Reid deal with him when he can just try to work with the gang of 7? The Majority Leader sets the agenda, and cuts the deals. Otherwise, he's not really the leader, is he?

If Janice Rogers Brown, Pryor & Owen make it to the Appelate court, it's a win for Bush. I find it hard to see it any other way.

1. Bush did what the right wanted and got 3/5th across. (here's hoping)

2. The Malignant 7 R's outed themselves as quislings of sorts - ending Presidential aspirations for some

3. The Dems were forced into a promise that Talk Radio, Fox & Blogs will (and now can) eviscerate them, if broken.

4. Neas can write what he wants, but Bush can still nominate conservatives, and any filibuster makes the Dems deal breakers and the Malignant 7 look like idiots.

___

The glass is 3/5th full.

I'm hoping Bush puts up Estrada again, and screws them all. Hispanics will go 45-40 for R's in 2008, and we still get to vote on ending the filibuster.

David:

Frist was never a serious candidate unless all the front runners and Romney bailed. McCain can win easily.

BB--

You have it right, IMO. I have actually read some of Janet Rogers Brown's speeches-- she is too far right for me!! And on the DC Circuit?

Myers was Hatch's pick, Saad was a Bush 41 retread, and for them we get three hardliners? Declre victory and get out of Vietnam.

Text of the agreement? It's a non-binding piece of paper. When Dems filibuster a Supreme Court nominee the Republicans simply declare the circumstances to not be extraordinary and it's a dead letter.

Dan, OJ -

The problem I see is that under II.A. the 7 Dem signers can say they find the nominee extreme and vote for a filibuster and then under II.B they say they are not violating the spirit of the memorandum and therefore will oppose the rule change. Which means the GOP is stuck because the traditionists in the Senate will not want to be seen as violating this MOU, let alone senate tradition.
And McCain will not get the GOP nomination. But then again he was planning on a third party run anyway and hoping to win with 35-40% of the vote.

Look at how happy Reid is on the floor. That tells you who won.

The President should give recess appointments to Myers and Saad over Memorial weekend. That would put them on the bench until the end of 2006.

Frist is finished as a presidential contender. Good thing too. What a weak, pitiful "leader".
Can you imagine him in the Oval Office?

AAW: except that it's clear that the Dems are now on record as saying Pryor, Brown, and Owen do not fall under exceptional circumstances.

Thus all 3 are ripe for the SCOTUS.

I'm with BB and OJ.

I'm of two minds - David's and oj's. I think it just delays the real fight - probably to after the 2006 election. I think you'll see the Dems try to hold Janice and Priscilla to as near 50 votes as possible, to make it easier to argue that they're too extreme for Supreme Court nominations.

One prediction: the "moderates" will find themselves in an increasingly untenable position. Their compromises are only ratcheting up the polarization in this country. Postponing victory and defeat only makes the competition nastier. Eventually, there's going to arrive a "you're with us or against us" moment for the moderates.

This only makes me appreciate the House Majority Leader that much more. The Hammer wouldn't have let something this easy get away. Alas, there are no Hammers for the GOP in the Senate.

Silly to say McCain is finished. While judges are and remain the most important domestic issue, will the judiciary be more important that national security in 2008? And who will be stronger on national security issues than McCain in 2008 (other than Hillary)?

McCain is probably leading the pack, and he sure didn't hurt himself here. Unfortunately.

I'm perfectly willing to be wrong and have this be a big win, but I don't see it.

OJ: If you think that, having bucked the party to enter into this agreement, the pathetic seven are now going to ignore it, you're kidding yourself. In fact, having entered into it, they shouldn't ignore it. There is, G-d help me, a value in senators trusting each other to do what they say they will do.

All: If the pathetic seven had stayed with the majority, we would have got a vote on all President Bush's nominees from here on out, even if Saad, for example, wasn't actually confirmed. Whatever DeWine and Graham are suggesting, the document specifically accepts that Saad and Myers can be filibustered without the nuclear option being used. The pathetic seven say, flat out, "we commit to oppose the rules changes" simply in response to the Dems having signed that memorandum without any promise as to future judges except that they will only filibuster in extraordinary circumstances. What can that mean but a conservative Supreme Court nominee?

As for the numbers, the Dems have 45 senators, including Jeffords. They can lose four, and keep up the filibusters. Seven Dems signed the MOU, so those seven, if they continue to act together, can determine which judges get votes and which don't. (I do accept that "extraordinary circumstances" is some limit on them. They can't now start filibustering every nominee. But, explicitly, they can filibuster some nominees.) My reading is that Bobby Sheets (rather than Harry Reid, who may have been undercut by this deal as much as Frist) can now deliver cloture or a filibuster as he sees fit. Look for W.Va. to get a demonstration project on whether gold really would make a good paving material.

Oh, and this just confirms my previous belief that McCain doesn't intend to run for president.

Did you notice whose name isn't on this MOU?

Right--G. W. Bush.

Of course, we now know that Frist is little better than Trent Lott was. Pathetic!

The presidential ambitions of Frist, McCain and even Graham really depend more on how this plays out if and when a Supreme Court vacancy finally comes open. We're still 3 1/2 years out from Election Day 2008, and even something as momentus as Sept. 11 faded in the minds of many by the time the 2004 election rolled around, so as much as this action has angered those on the right, the fact there's no Supreme Court spot involved at this point means the deal isn't a deal-breaker for anyone's presidential hopes as of now.

When a Supreme Court vacancy comes open, and especially is Rhenquist defies conventional wisdom and stay on for another year, pushing the selection of his replacement directly into the 2006 election cycle, then what action the moderates take or Frist is able to pull off in support Bush's nominee will be a key towards their hopes of winning the 2008 GOP nomination. If Frist can't get that nomination through, or if McCain thinks he can win the nomination if he sabotages a high court pick, then they'll see their presidential hopes ended.

Oh, and The Corner (or maybe the Bench Memo blog at NRO) is bringing up the (hopefully paranoid) possibility that the Democrats extracted an undisclosed promise to vote against Owens, Pryor and/or Brown as their price for signing the MOU.

I would be astonished if that were true.

Another collateral possibility is that there will be additional retirements on the Court. Had the filibuster been 'busted', perhaps only Rehnquist would retire. Now, Stevens, O'Connor, and maybe even Ginsburg will go as well.

Another point to note: the memo says nothing about recess appointments. Should Bush give another one (to the appellate court), I am sure Reid would tear up the deal and we would be back to square one. It also virtually assures that Bush's SC nominee will be a minority, because he is not going to send white bread to the Senate after this "smarmy" deal (unless he sends up Ashcroft, who could not be blocked under the terms the Dems agreed to - a former two-term governor, a Senator, and Atty. General is quite ordinary, eh?).

This is really a battle between McCain and Frist now, not the Dems and the GOP. Can anyone imagine Humphrey doing this to LBJ? Or Warner doing this to Bob Dole?

Finally, while Harry Reid may think he has 'won', all he has done is make the filibuster the new third rail of politics. To use it now, especially against a minority, would be suicide. There is no way Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson, Mary Landreiu, Bill Nelson, or Mark Pryor are going to block someone like Estrada or Brown or Ashcroft or O'Connell now.

BTW, I think Reid is only 'happy' because he didn't get nuked, which he knew was coming.

However, the deal is bad because it flouts the order of the Senate, and the relationship between the executive and the legislature.

AWW:

Stuck? Who's going to enforce the agreement? They're all touchy about their prerogatives and the whole thing falls apart in an instant. Meanwhile, Ms Brown is one step closer to the Court.

David:

You're getting reaction from the fever swamps, not from the real world. McCain can justly argue that there weren't 50 votes to get rid of the filibuster so by acting he got the best deal possible. Brown and Owens will be seated because of him.

David - There's the flip side to your argument. 48 GOPs would appear to support the nuclear option. If 2 of the MOU signers (i.e. DeWine and Graham) decide the Dems have violated the MOU then they can vote for the filibuster and it gets passed (with a Cheney tie breaker and assuming no other GOP defections.)

In sum there is confusion as to what the MOU really means. We'll have to see what happens for the next few nominees to determine if the GOP won, the Dems won, or it was a draw.

AWW:

The central point about "moderates" is that the MOU means something different to each of them and they'll all think the others broke it within a couple months, if not weeks.

The recess appointment implications are interesting. Because the pathetic seven agreed not to vote for a rule change only in the 109th Congress, the recess appointment, which would put judges in office until the end of the 109th Congress, is a good tool to use.

OJ: As we've both noted, people outsmart themselves when it comes to the president by not taking him at his word. I think that same goes here: why enter into it (and anger the base) if you're not willing to stick to it. Take them at their word: they don't like the mechanism for rule change, they want to preserve the filibuster and they'd love it if the President came to them and said, "Mother, may I" before nominating judges. Put another way, which two would switch to get rid of the filibuster? If you answer, "McCain, because he wants to be president," then we disagree.

jim:

It's impossible to imagine Dole trying to get rid of the filibuster. He loved the institution too much to game it.

OJ: Isn't the fever swamp our base?

David:

All 14 would change their positions depending on circumstance and their wounded feelings. Appoint a conservative Hispanic from AZ who McCain knows and when the Democrats filibuster him McCain will lead the GOP in breaking the rules open.

You're expecting the unprincipled to act principled. They won't.

AWW: How can it end up being a win? Owen, Pryor and Brown are going to get confirmed. They always should have been and would have been if we had pulled the trigger, so that's a draw. Myers and Saad are going to be filibustered, and wouldn't have been if we had pulled the trigger, so that's a loss. There are three possibilities: 1. The Dems don't try anymore filibusters, so we're still down two from where we would be if we had pulled the trigger, but the president doesn't have quite the free hand he would have had. He can't, for example, renominate Estrada. A clear loss for us. 2. The Dems continue to filibuster the most conservative nominees and the pathetic seven abide by their commitment not to vote for a rule change. A clear loss for us. 3. The Democrats filibuster, two of the pathetic seven change their minds and revoke their commitment and we change the rule. That's the best result, and we're still down two and probably lose the pr war.

It may be, though, that this is the price we pay for the president's popularity being so low right now.

David:

No, the fever swamp, on the Right, is the same folks who could never vote Republican again because of the Chinese spy plane incident, the steel tariffs, CFR, etc. On the Left it's folks who think Americans are hidiung under their beds for fear of the Patriot Act and Tom DeLay.

All that matters in this kerfuffle is that Brown and Owens get confirmed. Too bad Estrada didn't tough it out.

David:

The votes weren't there for pulling the trigger.

OJ: I'm expecting them to elevate form over substance. They always have.

I agree, though, that the pathetic seven, and particularly McCain, are now Kingmakers and anyone they sponsor will get a vote. Do we really doubt that part of the reason McCain did this was to give himself more power at Frist's expense? As I said, I think that's a lot of the reason that Byrd's here.

So your position is that he's both power hungry and won't take a presidency that's his for the asking?

David:

The form is that the Democratic 7 oppose their own parties filibusters, meaning they can't be sustained, and in exchange the GOP 7 don't vote to get rid of the filbuster.

OJ: That's circular. The reason the votes weren't there is that the pathetic seven cut a seperate deal. The whole point is that they should have voted with the party to pull the trigger, rather than making themselves the center of the universe.

And the sad thing is that there's not a thing to be done about it. Now that I've calmed down a little, I accept that a Republican majority is still worth it, and that we can't just drumb them out of the party and they're not going to lose primary challenges. Maybe "the votes weren't there" saves Frist, though I still say he'll never be president.

Other Republicans would likely have voted against the rule change had it come to that--Arlen Specter for one.

OJ: That's not what the MOU says. It commits the Dems to vote for cloture on the chosen three. It explicitly says that the fourteen signatories are not commiting either way on Myers and Saad, implying that the Dems will still filibuster, which is what Reid says. It says that the signatories won't otherwise (i.e., not counting Myers and Saad) filibuster except in extraordinary circumstances. In other words, they can still filibuster. It says that the Republicans won't change the rules in this congress regardless of what the Dems do. My guess is that "extraordinary circumstances" is going to mean any conservative Supreme Court nominee.

As for McCain, I think that he is being honest when he says he won't run and thus he's setting himself up as a kingmaker in the Senate without regard to its effect on a hypothetical presidential run. If nominated, he might well be elected. He won't get the nomination because (a) he won't run and (b) he wouldn't win.

Other Republicans would likely have voted against the rule change had it come to that--Arlen Specter for one.

I think that's wrong, but if so, why did the Democrats sign? How can the answer not be because the MOU is an even bigger win for them than defeating the rule change.

David & OJ,

This is a fluid situation and we all may end up being a little right or wrong before it's all over.

The filibuster issue was one more of raw political power over 'constitutionality' anyway. The murky nature of the deal underscores that fact.

It started with obscure Senate rules and ends with them.

If Brown & Owens are seated, their decisions will reverberate far beyond the scope of the pathetic McCain or Byrd.

David:

They're moderates, which means each thinks only he is pure of heart. The commitment in Part B depends on the not filibustering in Part A. Myers and Saad got thrown under the bus, but everyone else the Democrats filibuster breaks the deal.

Blocking all the nominees, especially the women, was a loser for them. They needed an out. The MOU is a bigger win.

BB:

Bingo!

AND if we don't keep the Senate in 06 - no conservative judges.

I'm hearing a curious silence. I know it's late, but what the President (or his spokescritters) have to say tomorrow morning will let us know how much this really was a victory for "moderation." Especially Part 2B Paragraph 2, to which I hope the President will respond, in effect, "not on your life." These guys are so used to making deals with themselves, that they've included a party without consulting him (I assume) and that, if his past behavior is any indication, is not good.

And let's not forget that in the 19th century, it was decades of compromising to keep a minority happy that lead to a bloody war. Not saying that this will lead towards war, but someday this will be considered another historic example of how putting off the inevitable confrontation often only makes things worse.

(And I've not seen a legible list of the Dems, can you add such to the bottom of your posting? thanks.)

Democratic officials said an unwritten aspect of the pact is that two nominees not named in the deal - Brett Kavanaugh and William J. Haynes - would not be confirmed and would be turned aside either at the committee level or on the floor.�

via NR

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/24/politics/24judges.html

Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

In other words, there can be filibusters and we can't second guess you. In the language used, the commitment not to change the rules is seperate, though I agree with you that there is a limit. If filibusters are too common, the pathetic seven may consider themselves clear to vote for a rule change. It is perfectly clear to me, though, that filibustering the president's first Supreme Court nominee, unless cleared with Bobby Sheets first, is no reason under the MOU to change the rules.

BB: But if the pathetic seven had stayed on the reservation, we'd have those three, plus the other two, plus anyone the president chose to nominate and the Republican senate chose to approve.

OJ: Throwing two nominees under the bus is not a win. So, we're agreed: the MOU was a bigger win for the Dems.

Raoul: I'm a "pull the bandage off fast" kind of guy. We should make clear that this isn't even close to a reason to start a civil war.

So, if what Sandy reports is true, the Dems, with 45 senators, have been given a veto over the president's nominations. They don't even have to filibuster, because the pathetic seven will do there work for them. I really hope this isn't true.

If it is, is this still a big win?

Oh, and I apologize to any Canadians out there for any injudicious comments I have have made about your Parliament and its members in the past week. This deal smells just as bad, and here they don't even have the excuse that it keeps the opposition out of power.

David:

It was a win for both parties. A loss for Saad.

I have trouble seeing this as anything but a zero sum game, and as we both agree that it helps the Dems...

The Republicans had zero--they just got six.

""If an individual senator believes in the future that a filibuster is taking place under something that's not extraordinary circumstances, we, of course, reserve the right to do what we could have done tomorrow," said Senator Mike DeWine, Republican of Ohio and another lawmaker instrumental in the compromise."

Like I said, this isn't war material, but when the fight does come, it will be nasty, dirty and personal. I would at best figure it will be like Clinton's impeachment, where several GOP congresscritters became collateral damage. The real problem with this deal is that they all think that all along the fight has been limited to within the Senate, and it can be solved within the Senate as well. In effect, a large minority of the GOP has decided that given the choice between their party and its supporters (and doing what's right) and the Senate as an institution, they will choose to side with the latter, and to hell with everyone else. Which is why some of us are mad. And why when the fight does come, the Senate, as a whole, may be "the enemy".

I was speaking of Dole and the incomprehensibility of someone crossing him on Senate policy. Of course he liked the filibuster, and used it well (even though he condemned its use for judicial nominations about 3 weeks ago).

This "agreement" is just another step in the dance of egos. The real test is when Bush (like the cowboy he is, amen) nominates someone who is extraordinary. And the closer to the 2006 elections, the better for the GOP, in my opinion.

But Harry Reid has to pay for slandering Saad. Perhaps an ethics investigation, to which I heard rumors over the weekend?

Let McCain go. Hating him isn't worth it. However, if Frist needs to get a future nominee past a threatened filibuster, then ruining McCain may have to be done as well.

No judge had better be turned aside at the committee level (absent malfeasance). Then we will have to fight Specter as well as McCain. If that is what the Dems expect, then screw them. And if the GOP gets to 58, 59, or (*hosanna*) 60 in 2006, then run the Senate like the House. Jeff Sessions for Majority Leader!

OJ: The president got 3 he should have gotten anyway and, as you say, the Dems couldn't realistically block. He lost at least 2 and, depending on these rumors, 4. The other 6th Circuit nominees weren't being filibustered and were always going to be approved, they were just being held hostage on a blue slip, a practice that should definitely be ended.

If Kavanaugh and Haynes are in trouble it will likely turn out to be because of Lindsay Graham opposing their role on torture memos. And only if DeWine agreed to vote with him can the nominations be killed in committee.

David:

the moderates are just more conservative than you and don't want to change the rules willy-nilly.

OJ: That's not a bad argument. I wasn't thrilled about losing the filibuster, time-tested tradition that it is, but I want the president's nominees to get on the bench more. That's why I wanted the Reps to hang tough, convince the Dems that they had the votes they needed, and force the Dems to blink and vote for cloture without triggering the nuclear option.

My thoughts on topics that came up overnight:

- Byrd and Inouye voted for it just so there would be 7 Democrats to go with the 7 moderate Republicans who wanted to be part of the deal.

- Just as the Supreme Court may vote either liberal or conservative, but always votes to maximize the power of the Supreme Court, so Senate moderates always vote to enhance the power of the Senate. The end of the filibuster would increase the President's power over nominations relative to the Senate's, and it's not to be expected that moderates would embrace that.

- The 7 apostates did bargain for some good things: they got the conservatives through and allowed the Democrats to filibuster only the moderates.

- In reality, Bush was never going to enter the negotiations himself in a big way until after the 2006 elections, because his only leverage is to threaten unpopular things like vetoing budget bills, and he hopes to win at the ballot box. So I wouldn't be surprised if Bush indicated to the 7 apostates that he didn't mind postponing the filibuster fight to 2007.

- How the Democrats define "extraordinary circumstances" is the crux of this. The political ball is in their court. A broad interpretation is unpopular and lets Republicans campaign against Democratic obstructionism in 2006. A narrow interpretation seats Bush's nominees and makes Republicans look moderate for avoiding a fight. Meanwhile, Republicans have unilaterally disarmed until 2007, so can't be the tough guys.

- I'd bet that apostates like Graham would have passed on the deal had Bush asked them to. I'd bet that Bush didn't ask them to.

Devid:

Yes, they just got all but 2, maybe 1, of the judges being held up

As for the last two comments: there's nothing conservative about preserving the filibuster of judicial and executive nominees, which is a betrayal of tradition and no more appropriate a power than the power to filibuster budget bills. The filibuster power is useless to Republicans, because as soon as there's a Democratic president and Senate majority they'll do away with it.

However, there's plenty of time to defeat the filibuster.

pj:

Conservatism doesn't proceed from reasoning about the current value of a thing. It's an aesthetic which tends to favor not changing things in haste. In particular, not changing a thing that makes the exercise of power more difficult would seem eminently conservative.

Finally, here's the main reason I'm not as alarmed as David. I believe at least some of the 7 apostates were in touch with Karl Rove & indirectly the President throughout these negotiations, and had his tacit acceptance of the deal. I think the President influenced things in two ways:

1. I think he gave instructions about what was acceptable and what wasn't -- e.g., it was OK to agree not to use the nuclear option this term, but not in the 2007-08 term. What with the practice of recess appointments, extending a vacancy for 2 years costs the GOP nothing (indeed, it's a good thing, as recess appointees are more attentive to elected-branch wishes than lifetime appointees), as long as Bush's nominees get seated before he leaves office.

2. I think one of the unwritten parts of the deal is the assurance of the 7 apostates to Bush that they'll break any filibusters, if necessary, before he leaves office. I think Bush gave the moderates a chance to look big, save the Senate filibuster, and avoid a polarizing confrontation under the glare of the media, in exchange for commitments to see that his nominees get seated before he leaves office.

PJ: All other things equal, conservatives should be for anything that throws a monkey wrench into government. I agree that the Dems will do away with the filibuster the moment it's to their advantage, and the media will cheer them on.

OJ: We'll see. Obviously, if the president continues to nominate conservatives and gets his nominees confirmed, then this is ok. In other words, to the extent that the results from this compromise mimic winning, it's ok, although we'll still be at least 2 and as many as 4 judges down.

One thing I'm seeing in the commentary this morning, particularly from the left, is that this legitimizes the idea that the "mainstream" is where the Dems say it is and that it is legitimate to filibuster to keep out extremists.

oj & David - As far as what's "conservative", one conservative inclination is to achieve compromises and deals. A slight supermajority, bringing more parties into the deal, makes the deal more stable and may be beneficial if it doesn't greatly inhibit the odds of reaching a compromise; but making it too hard to reach a deal threatens to prevent compromise, undermining comity and creating civil conflict. The proper conservative position is to find the right balance.

Requiring majority Senate consent, plus the majority-elected President's nomination, is already a modest supermajority requirement. The lifetime appointment of judges and 9-member Supreme Court also moderates the influence of each President, averaging out nominations across parties. Those are, I think, sufficient protections against bad deals. The Senate supermajority requirement tilts us over to the destructive, polarizing side of the optimum.

One more comment: The fact that this deal was reached now enables Brown & Owen to be confirmed quickly, before Supreme Court nominations open up, so that the Democrats will be in an uncomfortable position if they get nominated to the Supreme Court this summer. This deal dramatically increases the chances Bush will pick Brown & Owen for the Supreme Court.

PJ: I have to say that I don't see that last point. Robert Bork was a circuit court judge. So was Douglas Ginsburg. So was Clarence Thomas. The Dems are willing to argue that confirmation to the circuit court does not imply fitness for the Supreme Court -- and, frankly, they're right about that. I see nothing in this that stops them from borking Judge Brown. In fact, they'll argue that she was barely qualified for the lower circuit court and they just let her through to save the Senate.

OJ: I caught that aesthetic comment. There is nothing aesthetic about conservatism.

david:

2 down? Why? Who do you think is going to fill those seats if not conservatives?

David:

It's nothing but aesthetic.

czehoslovakia, 1939

i remember a deal the senate repubs made with the dems, regarding committee staffing. i also remember how well that turned out for the R's.

to anyone not living in a fantasy world this is a morale destroying agreement. this act alone will lead to the loss of the senate. who is going to contribute to sentate races, and why ? will the dem base be fired up by this ?

time will tell and i will be happy to be wrong, but the corrosive effects of this will be terrible.

Were conservatism so fragile that this modest deal could destroy it why would it be worthwhile in the first place?

As one of you noted above, moderates always vote to increase/preserve the power of the Senate. George Bush always acts to increase the power of the Presidency.

Prior to this deal, the top three candidates for the S. Ct. that were bandied about were Roberts, McConnell and Luttig. All good, solid conservatives. Compared to Janet Rogers Brown, they are screaming liberals.

Mickey Kaus is starting to smell the coffee. After a review of the deal that spins it as mostly a win for the Dems, his last thought is:

"If the Democrats have just given Janice Rogers Brown a free pass to the Supreme Court, maybe the deal isn't as favorable to them as I think it is."

Look for George Bush to put maximum stress on this deal strictly for institutional power reasons. In these times, post deal, the speculation is that Scalia would be given a pass if Bush wanted to elevate him. Look for Bush to go with Thomas if he can talk him into entering the fray. And for the vacancy, look for the publicized short list to be something along the lines of Estrada, Pryor and Brown, with Estrada being the choice so that the Dems know that if they filibuster him, they get Brown or Pryor (who should scare them almost as much as Brown.)

Also, look for the White House to put out spin about how reasonable they will be on S. Ct. appointmnets-- to entice more retirements.

And, the prospect of recess appointments is, as noted above, very high-- Warren and Brennan were both recess appointments if I remember correctly.

This is one more reason that McCain and Frist as Senators rather than Governors are systematically excluded from harboring realistic Presidential aspirations. Frist has just demonstrated that he's incapable of assembling a governing coalition even with a substantial majority and he is therefore not competent to be President.

McCain has again demonstrated that he's a RINO and has alienated the conservative activists a full year before primary organizations are constructed. He's practically guaranted that a dominant ABM (Anyone But McCain) candidacy will gel early and stay united throughout the primaries.

The only one that won was Hillary and she ran away and hid. I detest her but she's really got a great grasp of politics.

Orrin: Is it too early for a Presidential front runners poll predicting Iowa and New Hampshire?

How about a trifecta for the first three through the finish?

Yeah, 1939 really is a little too apocalyptic. Conservatism will be just fine. This just confirms that we've got to root out the left entirely and make sure it stays on the compost pile of history where it belongs.

Some additional thoughts - 1st, if this helps Bush get SS reform (with private accounts) through, then it's worth it. Graham seemed to be saying that on Hardball last night. 2nd, all the pressure now will be on the Dems, because if they use the extraordinary tag against virtually ANY nominee, they will be ripped for breaking the "deal", probably even by much of the MSM. 3rd, it dramatically weakens the radical left groups, because they run the risk of abandoning their 'party' over a political fight that they cannot win. I would not be surprised if a few of the "maverick" Democrats begin to condemn the influence these groups have on their party.

Finally, it frees the President to recess appoint liberally if the logjam continues (for any reason). He can simply say "the Senate is broken, and the courts cannot wait". I don't know why Bush only made one recess judicial appointment, but there you have it.

Plus, it allows him to veto the highway bill in a slightly better atmosphere (cross your fingers).

Ray:

Hasn't George Bush shown himself unfit to be president by that standard?

David:

That's crazy talk. Man will always be roughly half Left and half Right. You can't root out half of yourself.

oj - France gets by with all Left and no Right, maybe the U.S. can give all Right a try. We'll be better off with two parties of the right.

Lot's of battles for us to fight between us once we get the socialists squared away.

I have to agree with those who say this deal is neutral at this point. However I'm not as naive as OJ and PJ and frankly I'm appalled by their lack of insight into Senatorial politics. If you really think Dem Senators will have some kind of problem Borking Judge Brown for SCOTUS just because they let her by on this deal then I question the sanity of any statement you make on any political issue. Not only will they do it - they'll do it successfully with the full corporation of the media.

And McCain's presidential aspirations were dead long before this battle. He couldn't raise money among the redbloods if the life of the party depended upon it - there are just too many hard feelings from too many fights. Look for a political newbie for GOP in 2008 � maybe an hispanic from Texas or Florida who gets a nod from GW.

I think OJ has the better of this one. JRB is so hard core, I think the Ds have lost ideology as a ground for fillibuster.

The Senate has invoked cloture on Owens 81-18. She'll probably be confirmed today. She'll soon be followed by Brown, Pryor and others.

This is a "loss" for the right wing? Um, if you say so...

It looks now like the 'deal' will be either validated or destroyed by what happens to Brett Kavanaugh.

As expected, Hillary voted for cloture on Owens. So did Durbin, and even Harry Reid. Surprise.

Casey: A very well qualified, completely unobjectionable Justice from the Texas Supreme Court has to wait years for a vote on the floor of the Senate -- a vote the outcome of which was always foreordained -- and we're supposed to celebrate?

Yes, you are supposed to celebrate BECAUSE SHE'LL GET CONFIRMED.

Sorry to point out the obvious, but somebody has to do the dirty work. Getting your judges confirmed is a victory.

But nobody guarantees you victory on every judge. That's what is called the "real world."

Yes, it's the classic Republican senatorial deal. We agree to take less than we could have gotten in the hope that, some time in the future, our magnamity will convince the Dems, out of the goodness of the hearts, to let us have something else we're entitled to.

And, by the way, until this president, having 55 seats in the senate did, indeed, guarantee the president that his nominees would be confirmed.

David - If there were 93 Republicans in the senate they'd still give in to this foolishness.

You're breaking my heart, David. You guys get at least six out of the ten judges and whine about not getting ten out of ten. That's tough. Real tough. I might lose sleep over it tonight.

OJ:

Regarding your comment that I somehow implied that if Frist is incompetent that evidences Bush's equal incompetence.

First, exercising Executive authority is fundamentally different than establishing legislative concensus. Example: Bush lost several UN votes on different mideast issues and then went ahead and conducted American foreign policy as he saw fit. Conclusion: Someone with a decisive temperment can succeed as President even if he cannot succeed in establishing a political concensus because the office holder is constitutionally empowered to act within his designated sphere.

Second, Frist is the Majority Leader in the Senate, which is itself the legislative branch empowered to enact legislation and consent to Executive appointments including the Courts. The fundamental measure of Frist's competency in that Majority Leader role is the ability to command the loyalty of his own party's majority. He has failed in that capacity.

Failure as a legislative leader may be fundamentally dissimiliar to failure as an executive since the skill sets don't overlap too much but it's still failure by another name and just as bitter.

It's also not the best recommendation of one's general political skills; ie... "I failed in the Senate with a substantial majority but now I have the requisite skills to succeed as Chief Executive." That's a hard sell come spring in Iowa.

Ray: I think it's fair to say that this administration has a worse than average congressional liason office. Not being able to pursuade senators to support the administration isn't good, but senators are hard to corral. Getting serially surprised by the senate and house is inexcusable.