Sorry, David, but this sort of reminds me of what Bum Phillips said about Don Shula: "he can take your'n and beat his'n, and then he can take his'n and beat your'n." Probably helps the nerves to be indifferent about Harriet Souter-Thomas herself.

Bush's options were really proscribed to finding a low-profile nominee he trusted, or expect to go through a series of battles with the GO-14 and the Senate Democrats until either Bush or the Republican seven gave in somewhere down the line, and possibly well into the 2006 primary season. But the harshest critics on the right continue to see this as either a non-factor, or a problem that could be just steamrollered over in a fortnight, leaving the broken bodies of Democrats and Republican moderates in the wake. Nice fantasy, but odds are it wouldn't fly.

And if one were the cynical sort one could say this keeps the issue of judges alive and well for the 2006 election. The GOP can argue that they need to get rid of RINOs and Dems to get by the Gang of 14 while the Dems can argue there usual Bush=Hitler line.

I'll give odds that the nuclear option will be a non-issue beginning with the 2006 Congress. The only reason it's an issue now is that it would be changing the rules of the Senate in mid-session. At the beginning of each session, the Senate votes on their rules. In 2006--assuming the Republicans keep the majority--the rules will be slightly different and advise/consent nominees won't be subject to filibuster.

Who elected them President ?

The Go14 was directly self-elected, but indirectly one could say that voters in Congressional races nationwide "elected" them.

The Go14 works because in any political situation where the sides are nearly equal, power flows to the margins, the "swing vote".
That is the dynamic that allowed the Go14 to even conceive that they could form an effective cartel.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 11, 2005 9:31 PM

I'm surprised that so much attention is focused on the "Gang" and so little on Arlen Specter (along with Voinovich). If Specter were to oppose Brown, Luttig, Jones, Estrada, or Owen on idealogical grounds, which is quite likely, then Bush's options are more limited even if McCain publicly supported whomever was nominated. The squishy RINOs could line up behind Specter and complicate the equation, including any potential rules change.

If Kyl, Sessions, or even Orrin Hatch ran the committee, Specter would be much less important (just another sob sister), and all the media histrionics about a fight to the death would be empty noise. Even now, such talk is exaggerated, but problems in the committee limit Frist's ability to move things through the whole Senate. Plus, all the other problems Bush has had since July have changed the perception on the nuclear option - in the spring, it would have been a wash for the GOP because enough people saw the filibuster on nominees for what it was. Now, it would be very difficult for the Senate Republicans to even make their case (assuming they could find someone with the coherence to do it). The failure to change the rules back in January is taking on more significance.

All the horrified fury from the 'right' about the Miers nomination is pointed at the wrong target. Bush is doing the best he can - the pundits and wailers should be piling on Arlen Specter, George Voinovich, John Warner, and even Bill Frist. Of course, should a vacancy pop up over the Thanksgiving or Christmas holidays, Bush could always recess appoint someone we would all cheer, but I doubt if that will happen, unless he is prepared to use the whip hand on Congress. As Brendan Miniter (OpinionJournal) wrote yesterday, that may be the next step, but Bush cannot really punish JUST the RINOs in Congress, now can he? If the issue were merely beating the Democrats, wouldn't he already have done it? Of course, and that is what the fussbudgets do not want to face. One wonders if Bill Kristol would prefer to see Voinovich in the White House.

Jim Hamlen

I think you summed it up rather nicely, however I don't think Frist ever had the votes for the nuclear option.

Harriet Souter-Thomas?

What's next? Harriet Ginsburg-Scalia?

At any rate, the nomination looks set to sail through easily. I wish David was right and the base support was only 14 votes. But the bad news is that she'll get 65-70 votes.

Much as I'll hate the outcome, it will be fun to read the NRO Corner on the day Miers manages to get a 5-4 majority together to overturn Roe v Wade.

The real question is what the Gang of 14 was bargaining for. Was it the exclusion of genuine conservatives? Or was it, as now seems more likely, simply the exclusion of outspoken conservatives, so that they would accept conservative nominees so long as they're not obviously conservative? If the latter, then the Gang of 14 agreement was a kind of negotiated surrender. If the former, then the Gang of 14 agreement remains a threat. We'll see. But I think it's fair to see that Bush is giving us the best nominees he can get past the Gang of 14.

It was for exactly what it did--getting the most objectionable nominees in terms of ideology onto the bench but preserving the filibuster for anyone who might be unfit. It worked.

"Unfit" as far as the left is concerned.

This meeting most likely is the deciding meeting on the Miers nomination. This is the announcement by the Gang of 14 that the Miers nomination is not an exceptional circumstance, and thus no filibuster will be permitted. What NRO and (ironically) the Weekly Standard don't get is that the only group the president has to please in order to get his nominees on the Court is the GoF and that, in order to please them, he has to nominate a stealth candidate who might plausibly end-up being a moderate.

Miers is the perfect choice for the GoF because she appears to be a crony and a token, that being the kind of politics moderates understand best.

Unfit as far as Senators are concerned. The filibuster needn't be done away with just cause the wingnuts have their panties in a twist. It's conservative to keep it.

oj - I think it's clear now the purpose of the deal was to make sure Senators whose constituencies straddle the left-right divide, like Reps in blue states, Dems in red states, and John McCain, would not have to cast a vote on a polarizing nominee, thereby alienating half their support base.

And what will President McCain do if (when) the Senate dithers on his judicial and executive appointments? Temper, Johnny boy, temper...

It's conservative to keep it.

Why? So that we can be unprincipled in turn?