home

Frist to Break Compromise Already?

Congress Daily P.M. reports (via Think Progress):

Senate Majority Leader Frist will file for cloture on President Bush’s nomination of William Myers to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later this week, according to sources on and off Capitol Hill, wasting no time in testing the resolve of 14 Republican and Democratic senators who forced at least a temporary halt to the battle over Democratic filibusters of President Bush’s judicial picks.

Update: The Hill reports:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) warned Democrats yesterday that he will not hesitate to trigger the so-called “nuclear option” to enforce an eleventh-hour deal that a centrist coalition of 14 lawmakers struck Monday on President Bush’s stalled judicial nominees.

....Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), two of the seven Republican signatories to the memorandum of understanding on the judges, backed up Frist, threatening to vote for the option should Democrats attempt to block nominees in circumstances that the two lawmakers would not consider “extraordinary.”

So the Compromise, which failed to define "extraodinary circumstances," is subject to individual interpretation. In other words, "extraordinary circumstances" means whatever uber-right Republicans want it to mean. The phrase doesn't define when Democrats can filibuster. It defines when Republicans say they can't.

If I drew up a contract and failed to define a term so critical to the "meeting of the minds" of the parties, I'd be sued for malpractice in a heartbeat.

More from the Hill:

“Let me be very clear. The constitutional option remains on the table,” Frist said to Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (Nev.) yesterday morning on the Senate floor, using the Republican-preferred term for the controversial tactic.

Reid had a different perspective: “The nuclear option is gone for our lifetime. We don’t have to talk about it anymore.” “It remains an option,” Frist said. “I will not hesitate to use it if necessary.”

Graham and DeWine later echoed Frist in a press conference after yesterday’s weekly Republican luncheon. “The nuclear option is on the table and remains on the table,” DeWine said.

If this falls apart so soon, it will be egg all over the faces of the Centrists, while Priscilla Owen laughs from her perch on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. What a deal.

< 14 U.S. Soldiers Killed in Past 3 Days | Licence Plate Bears Meth Formula >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Frist to Break Compromise Already? (none / 0) (#1)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    Actually, filing for cloture in no way breaks the agreement. It may lead to that, eventually, should the Dems try to filibuster and the Republicans disagree on the good faith of such a move. But both filing for cloture, and filibustering in genuine good faith (where truly extraordinary circumstances are involved), are each allowed.

    Re: Frist to Break Compromise Already? (none / 0) (#2)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    et al - Uh, what don't you folks understand about that the "agreement" was with 7 Repub Senators, and not with the Repub Senate leaders. So, given that, why do you think Frist feels any obligation to back up a deal that made him look stupid and one that he had no hand in? As I noted earlier, now the Demos must keep at least 5 of the 7 Repubs happy. A task they will find daunting.

    Re: Frist to Break Compromise Already? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    Cloture is a motion to end debate, i.e, a filibuster. Filibusters are supposed to be allowed. By moving for cloture, he's moving to prevent or prematurely end debate.

    Re: Frist to Break Compromise Already? (none / 0) (#4)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    BTW - My guess is Frist will move for votes on all the nominees, and if the Demos filibuster he will move for cloture, making the magnificent seven vote with the Democrats, at least three times. I don't think McCain wants to do that. I don't think Graham, who will need the SC base next time around, wants to do that. Thus the task will fall on Hagel, who, wanting to be President, and having observed the backlash, will fall in line and vote the straight Repub ticket.

    Re: Frist to Break Compromise Already? (none / 0) (#5)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    If Frist forces the issue it will make it clearer to many people what kind of extremists Bush and Frist really are. I recommend this article on REDSTATE.ORG for a reasoned evaluation of "The deal" by someone on the "other side" A tease
    What's bad? What's bad is easy enough to see: the party and the Administration have lost their way in the second term. The pressing issues of the day -- the war, the deficit, the dollar -- have all been ignored in favor of bizarre voluntary fights on Social Security, the filibuster, and the rearguard actions to defend Tom DeLay. It is a stupefying squandering of political capital that speaks ill of the party leadership from the White House to the RNC to the Office of Senator Frist to the offices of activists from Main Street to K Street.


    Re: Frist to Break Compromise Already? (none / 0) (#6)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    TL, Moving to end debate - even presuming Frist were to have supported the agreement in the first place - does not violate the agreement in the slightest. The Senate can, and prob will, then vote on Mr. Frist's motion, thus underscoring the correctness of my previous sentence, regardless of the result of that vote. And, as PPJ so graciously reminded me, Frist is not a party to this most nebulous of agreements - an agreement to agree? - anyway. But in any event, though his move to end debate may set in motion a chain of events leading to Senate rule change, a request for cloture is nonetheless quite proper, even by the standards of the agreement's Senators. Please review it again before replying, thx.

    Re: Frist to Break Compromise Already? (none / 0) (#7)
    by The Heretik on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    No surprise in this. Frist's immediate statement on the Senate floor following the deal announcement was the same as it was on the floor. The option remains avalailable. Owen will indeed laugh on the bench, Brown will too. People subject to their rulings will cry.

    Re: Frist to Break Compromise Already? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    If Saad and company come up for a floor, the 7 Repubs don't have to do a damn thing. They can vote for cloture. All they agreed to do was not vote for the nuclear option. If the Dem's hold (i.e. no more than 4 vote for cloture) then the filibuster continues. I don't see how people can say "Frist is breaking the agreement" -- Frist didn't agree to anything so there is nothing he can break. He is no more a party to the memo of understanding than you or I. If he does try to bring Saad and Myers to the floor, he will (probably) lose to a fillibuster but he may gain points (or at least not lose points) with "Radical Cleric" Dobson & Co.

    Re: Frist to Break Compromise Already? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    The deal was Myers and Saad “will be filibustered or withdrawn.”

    Re: Frist to Break Compromise Already? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    Excuse me if I'm being dense (its been a long day). Myers and Saad will be filibustered until their names are withdrawn or 5 Dem's bolt. Frist moving for cloture does stop the filibuster -- unless the motion carries. I expect he will call for cloture more than once. This helps him with the Theocons, even if it fails. If one of the 7 Repubs moves for cloture then we have a breaking of the agreement.

    Re: Frist to Break Compromise Already? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:19 PM EST
    If you act like a doormat, people walk on you. They deserve it. Graham's statement is perfect. He sends a clear message that the dems could NEVER send when they had the majority, which is "we can work for compromise to make this country great". Dems are in serious danger of losing the momentum created by the schiavo idiocy. Perhaps it is time for the Libertarian Party to secure the votes of the left and abandon what is left of the spine that was.

    Re: Frist to Break Compromise Already? (none / 0) (#12)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:21 PM EST
    et al - Look, facts are that Frist is not a party to the agreement. So, again, why do you think he is in the least bit interested in supporting a deal that made him look stupid and hurt his chances at the Repub nomination?