September 28, 2005

HOWARD DEAN VS THE DEMOCRATS:

Filibuster Showdown Looms In Senate: Democrats Prepare For Next Court Pick (Dan Balz and Amy Goldstein, 9/28/05, Washington Post)

Democrats have splintered almost evenly over Roberts's nomination as chief justice, leading to frustration among party activists who think their elected leaders did not put up a serious fight against him. Pollsters have told party leaders that a show of opposition against Bush's next nominee could be crucial to restoring enthusiasm among the rank and file on the left.

In an interview, Dean said Democratic unity is essential in the upcoming battle and that the party "absolutely" should be prepared to filibuster -- holding unlimited debate and preventing an up-or-down vote -- Bush's next high court nominee, if he taps someone they find unacceptably ideological. He cited appellate court judges Priscilla R. Owen and Janice Rogers Brown as two who would be likely to trigger such opposition.

"Those people are clearly not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, and we're going to do everything we can to make sure they don't," he said. "If we lose, better to go down fighting and standing for what we believe in, because we will not win an election if the public doesn't think we'll stand up for what we believe in."

The possibility of a filibuster comes only a few months after an agreement that supposedly eliminated such threats. The Gang of 14 agreement barred filibusters against judicial nominees except under "extraordinary circumstances." The compromise also blocked Republican threats to change Senate rules to bar the use of filibusters to block judicial nominations, a step considered so drastic it became known as the "nuclear option."

Owen and Brown were cleared for confirmation to the appellate courts as part of that agreement, and Republicans said then that Democratic acquiescence in their confirmation meant the opposition party could not use ideology to bar future Bush nominees.


The Administration must be mighty tempted to use this nomination to further tear apart the Democrats.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 28, 2005 11:47 AM
Comments

Enough with the idle threats. Let's see them actually filibuster for once. This is just sabre rattling nonsense.

IIRC, it would be the first time in the 24/7 news cycle/internet era that such an event would occur. Surely that would make it more than some obscure political kerfuffle in D.C..

And, while we're at it, could we please refer to the GOP's option correctly: Nukular.

Posted by: John Resnick at September 28, 2005 12:04 PM

Knuckular.

Posted by: oj at September 28, 2005 12:08 PM

Apparently Raoul Cantero is a FL SC justice who has in the past taken pro-life positions and is actually Batista's great-grandson, if you can believe that. Is that not the coolest thing you've heard about any judge whose name has come up in these interminable rumors? How awesome would it be to see what sort of reaction would come from the left, and from Castro, if he were nominated?

Posted by: b at September 28, 2005 12:15 PM

b:

Now there's a pool pick.

Posted by: oj at September 28, 2005 12:19 PM

Wow! If we get this Cantero guy, AND Viet Dinh, we'd have TWO refugees from Communism. People like this understand that if the culture-war and the clash of civilizations are lost here there is no place left to run.

Posted by: Lou Gots at September 28, 2005 12:23 PM

"[...]because we will not win an election if the public doesn't think we'll stand up for what we believe in."

What was that again?

Posted by: Genecis at September 28, 2005 12:43 PM

I can see the '08 Dem platform now: "Our position is: Whatever the Republicans do, we are against."

Posted by: fred at September 28, 2005 12:52 PM

what Howard meant:

'We will not win an election unless we can convince a bunch of people that we're not fighting for what we believe in, and a bunch of other people that we are. Or something like that.'

Posted by: JonofAtlanta at September 28, 2005 1:23 PM

John: Jimmah Carter pronounced the word the same way.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at September 28, 2005 1:37 PM

"[...]because we will not win an election if the public doesn't think we'll stand up for what we believe in."

-- Howard Dean


"Double negatives are a no-no."

-- Alfred E. Neumann

Posted by: Matt Murphy at September 28, 2005 2:32 PM

Robert: They only substantive argument against that pronounciation.

Posted by: David Cohen at September 28, 2005 4:25 PM
« MILKING TRAGEDY: | Main | DESTINATIONS, NOT TECHNOLOGIES: »