home

Blogger Reaction to the Compromise

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue May 24, 2005 at 11:04:07 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'll be adding to this as I find other bloggers whose views I agree with on the Compromise:

  • Liberal Oasis:
    It is the same old conservatism with the same old centrist mask.
  • Maxspeak:
    I'm more interested in whether it is a victory for the Dems. The point of opposition is to obstruct outrageous legislation and appointments. As far as I can see, the Dems have failed to do this, in return for a vague commitment from the GOP to forego a procedural vote that they can always take in the future, in the event opinions differ on the meaning of "extraordinary." Ultimately, it is a recasting of the absurd deal we had heard about before: you retain the right to filibuster as long as you don't do so."
  • Skippy (R.J.Eskow):
    So now we learn that the democrats have achieved a "compromise" that is, in fact, a surrender. they avoided a shootout by throwing themselves face-down in the dirt. it's not their first "compromise." if there's one thing they've learned, it's how to compromise.

  • Joshua Zeist (Huffington Post):
    Over the past five years the GOP has weakened the independent judiciary; it has neutered the Senate as a check against presidential power; and it has violated a longstanding tradition of comity and consensus in the upper chamber. To be sure, Senate Republicans have been successful because they have the votes. But they've also steamrolled a weak and ineffective opposition. If the Democratic party cannot or will not safeguard the integrity of the courts, the separation of powers, and the key components of the New Deal and Great Society, then what use does it serve?
  • Avedon Carol at Sideshow:
    The thing is, no matter what happens, my instincts are screaming with the Retaliban in charge.

I may be done now. Like Avedon, I really don't want to talk about this any more. It's been a tremendous waste of energy and time.

Update: ok, one more.

David Corn at The Nation. I like his succinct description of the compromise:

Under this brokered arrangement, three of Bush's rightwing nominees for appellate courts--Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor Jr.--will not be filibustered. In return--so to speak--the filibuster will remain a weapon the Democrats can use in the future against other judicial nominees but only "under extraordinary circumstances." What qualifies as "extraordinary circumstances"? That was not defined.

His view isn't as pessismistic as mine, but he's right here:

But the Democrats did not walk out of the room with a hard-and-fast right to resort to a filibuster. With this compromise, they are only able to wield a judicial filibuster if seven Republican senators agree the situation is "extraordinary." In essence, a small band of moderate GOPers will now have veto power over the Democrats' use of the judicial filibuster.

Democrats and their allies in the judicial wars can point to the fact that one or two of the Bush nominees may be stopped and that the filibuster might be available in the future. But what they got out of this deal is more iffy than what the Republicans pocketed.

Go read David for the rest.

< ACLU ACLU Wins Photo Disclosure Battle | Radical Right Threatens Compromise Republicans >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Blogger Reaction to the Compromise | 17 comments (17 topical)
    Re: Blogger Reaction to the Compromise (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    Paul, In re, Clinton: In the next 25 years, assuming the Republic survives, Bill Clinton will be recognized as one of the greatest presidents of the twentieth century, behind Roosevelt surely, but not too far behind Truman, if at all. 'Nuff said. In re the present: Agreed, Kerry and (some of) the others are among the best around. So what? There is no way they can be effective without a functioning party behind them. You and I cannot help except in one way, and that is by making it explicit that we will not tolerate incompetence and impotent strategies. That means voting with our wallets, ie, carefully funding those parts of the party that deserve support while simultaneously demanding immediate changes in the national party's modus operandi. How do we make that demand forceful? I suspect the only way is with money, by targeting our donations so that we fund the good guys and defund the dross. I suggest funneling donations through MoveOn right now. You may have better ideas. I hope so. But giving money to the Dems directly the way I did from 2000 to 2004? Never again. They wasted my money and I can't afford to have them waste it again. 2004 was theirs to lose,. And they lost big time. Voter fraud, shmoter fraud. It shouldn't have even been close.