MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS


We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.


This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.


We have agreed to the following:


Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations

A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).



B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).


Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations


A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. 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.

B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “Advice” speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.

Need a link.

If it is the deal, it sounds like Saad and Meyers are going down.

Bush, in his unbelievable power grab, tried to turn the Senate Republicans into an extension of his radical views. Good for them for resisting!

The three branches were meant to operate independently of the other and I think we got the message out on that point.

It is extremely positive that this recommends that Bush consult both the democrats and the republicans PRIOR to submitting names.

I think the American people won this battle.

We got screwed, two ideologues got tossed (for the time being), and three dangerous judicial nominees will get their votes on the Senate floor without the safeguard of the Senatorial filibuster.

Nothing happened, except that the Democrats caved.

Frist won.

Frist didn't want a deal. The right will hate this.

this will be more of a victory for Democracy, not just democrats, than it may look right now. what was an inevitable defeat for us was turned into a compromise. It's the best we could hope for in this battle.

bushit will see it as a defeat. Anything less than absolute power is not good enough for him. The look on cat killer's face while he was reading it was priceless. He was NOT happy, which made me happy.

They said Reid had made almost the same offer to Frist, and Frist turned it down. In his eyes, he lost, and I'm sure it will be seen as a loss by the King, too. I realize that we will be confirming 3 bad judges, but it could have been so much worse. I was kind of preparing for one-party rule, and the thought was terrifying.

......these days, is compromise. It's ridiculous.

They've been crying and bitching all day.

......Joe and the boys stood up there on stage and pretended this was the best thing that ever happened to America!!! The bastards. :puke:

He couldn't 'git 'er done' for chimpco. McCain looks like a winner. Filibuster preserved in the event a moderate or liberal Supreme bites the bullet. If Chimp fails to consult with both sides before forwarding a nominee, he looks like a meanspirited asshole--and a liar.

It's all about perception. The idiots who don't pay attention are starting to see the GOP as a bunch of thugs who don't put their interests first.

Biggest winners are the Gang of 14. They all come off as statesmen/women, putting the national interest first.

How is it good for me as a citizen when Janice Brown is going to get a vote, and be put in. It is my understanding that she is against even 'selective incorporation.' It she ever gets on a Supreme Court on which four more agree (let's say), fundamental rights application to the States is gone ... the very cornerstone of the legal system is destroyed.

Even if that crazy thing doesn't happen, she would most certainly be the swing vote on a "Roe-V-Wade-type" situation.

She is definitely the nominee I most object to - how is this acceptable?

Brown, Owens & Pryor should not be allowed to proceed to confirmation. These are awful judicial choices....

x(

We got screwed, and they get their vote - which will end, I am certain, in their confirmation.

The Democrats caved, and I'm just sick over this.

A sad day--sadder to see some celebrating. Even defeat starts to taste sweet, apparently, after enough of it.

and would never be confirmed to a higher court.

So whom is the less marginalized here, the judge or the people?

Failed Supreme Court nominee??? Most people don't realize that Bork, a satanic looking cretin, was the COX SACKER...the guy who fired Watergate independent prosecutor Archibald Cox, after Elliot Richardson refused to do it and was fired, and his assistant also refused. Bork was the Solicitor General at the time, same job as Ted "Party On" Olson got post 9.11. He carried out an order to essentially subvert democracy, and he got Borked down the road.

The Senate has lions with long memories. Bork got Borked, and he deserved it, for his role during the Nixon reign of darkness.

I'm not happy but neither is the RW.

For one thing public opinion was against the filbuster and the folks were starting to wake up. The media would have gained power and made junior and his crime cabal look even worse than they do today.

Now its back to the same old ho hum, yawn, type day. junior should be gleeful over this decision and he knows it!

They would have been confirmed. I believe I'll be dead before this media takes junior to task. It would have been a big gamble that people will wake up. It could have had a negative effect with the media contributing to the GOP spin that the Dems were being unreasonable and had to be dealt with harshly. This public eats that shit three times a day and asks for more for desert. Time will tell if this is good or bad or in between. If it turns out bad we will all wish it had come to a head early on. If we had an honest media and a thinking public I would not have feared the confrontation. I certainly am skeptical that the GOPers will hold to the bargain. One thing that has to be kept in mind, we are the minority party and have not yet achieved the status of underdog in the mind of the general public yet. It reminds me of a situation like Germany after the fall of Hitler. No one supported the Nazi Party and everyone was forced into it. I'm afraid not enough people will wake up until too late.

not twice, already. So now she gets through. DAMN.

But we'll see...maybe all three could get an upcheck. Hopefully not.

but its a hell of alot better than the alternatives.

To expect you can be in the minority and not compromise is completely unrealistic.

People need to get real and support democratic senators for doing the best they could -- if you want to be angry be angry at the jerk-offs who are abusing power.

BIPARTISANSHIP> We have put the worst possible judges on the path to SCOTUS! What good is a judicial filibuster we promise not to use? If Owens and Pryor aren't circumstances to use it, what is? Give me a break. There was no need to compromise. The Repukes weren't going to do thids anyway.They are up for reeelection and their poll numbers aren't good.We just didn't have enough guts to call their bluff.

they would've called it.

If they could've gotten a better deal -- we would have a better deal.

And I do not remember anything about promising not to use the filibuster.

Try reading the document again, with a little less emotion this time. Maybe have a little more faith in the people WE as democrats elected while you're at it.

This was a neo-con stunt meant to obliterate the filibuster so there would be no opposition to the Rehnquist seat -- and the religious right would be hap hap happy with presidential candidate Frist.

Bipartisanship IS how this government works -- and with the polarity in the current electorate you better get used to it.

negotiated by Lieberman and Salazar, who are really republicans by their records? Right.They promised not to use the filibuster except under "extraordinary" circumstances. Well, if the three judges that they are letting past as part of the "deal " aren't "extraordinary circumstances" nothing is.We haven't had any bipartisanship for years and certainly not in "this" current administration. Bipartisanship means two sides and we can't even go to meetings.Our party has been closed out. You had better get used to that.

better place to be.

He is a conservative, it would be a swap. If Rhenquist goes, another conservative asshole WILL take his place, unless he refuses to leave, continues to survive, and we see a Dem Congress in 06.

The ones we have to worry about are some of the old liberals and moderates on the court--that is what we are saving our fire for.

they were pretty fukin close to doing it or we wouldn't be having this conversation? You think these lunatics are bluffing when they try to seize all the power?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050523/ap_on_go_co/filibuster_fight_139&printer=1

<snip>
Under the agreement, Democrats would pledge not to filibuster any of Bush's future appeals court or Supreme Court nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances."

For their part, Republicans agreed not to support an attempt to strip Democrats of their right to block votes.
<snip>

I think it would have been much better for democrats to stand there ground. Let republicans try and over turn the filibuster.

Hey, couldn't dems filibuster the rules change on filibuster??

no, the Dems could not have filibustered the rule change itself. The way this whole thing would have played out was through a proceedural move where the rules already call for a bare majority to pass. When the Dems keep the Senate from getting the 60 votes needed for cloture, Frist would ask Cheney as presiding officer to force an end to debate, which Cheney would happily do. Dems would appeal his ruling, and the Senate would then vote on the appeal. However the vote on the appeal would only require a simple 51 vote majority; Dems would need 6 Repubs to disagree with Cheney; even if 5 broke ranks it would create a 50-50 tie in which Cheney gets to cast the tie breaking vote.

Part II. In paragraph A, 7 Democrats agree not to filibuster except under "extraordinary circumstances". That is a CONDITIONAL pledge, with a conditional clause vague enough to allow Democrats to filibuster all but the three nominees explicitly given a pass in Part I.

In return, in paragraph B, 7 Republicans "commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress..." That appears to be an UNCONDITIONAL pledge lasting until midterm elections.

Of course, either half of the 14 signatories could abrogate this agreement at any time. But doing so could be interpreted as having acted in bad faith tonight.

Probably any nominee worth filibustering would be at least arguably "extraordinary". But there isn't a similar out for republicans.

The nuclear option is dead.

On the other hand, Frist did bully his way into getting some pretty bad nutbags confirmed.

and I fully expect them to do so again in the near future.

If this is what passes for statemen these days, God help us!

How do we go about removing these judges?

Three of the nominees go through- and perhaps not even the least extreme of them- and what do we get in return? Them not changing the rules? Why would they need to change the rules if they get their nominees?

And why should we care whether they try to change the rules anyway? I thought we had a plan to push back on that?

After these three, then what? Do we go through this again and give them 2 more nominees if they promise not to change the rules?

That "extraordinary" language is BS. Pretty much anything could be made to seem either ordinary or extraordinary. Especially in the Senate.

I don't like it. Yet.

What's the odds that Kenny winds up before Owen on appeal?

This is a win for the senate and its rules. To consider this a win for democrats, however is foolish and half-witted. Whatever benefit comes from having just preserved the filibuster and senate rules benefits both sides equally.

Three judges go through, and two are placed on some sort of indefinite hold (presumably until 2006ish)...this is not a win for democrats whatsoever. It's a win for the Senate and their rules, and as such it is a win for the Constitution.

...the Dems blinked

what does this MOU really mean then? That Dems can use the filibuster except in cases Bush nominates Satan to the bench?

Is this "compromise" preferable to having the Senate self-destruct? I'll vote for self-destruct!

It preserved the filibuster, and that's about it. Two judges go on indefinite hold, and I doubt they're going to withdraw their names or nominations.

It is interesting that they agree to decide for personal reasons only. That sentence implies a party-mindset, in my opinion. Essentially they're agreeing to listen to their own consciences rather than any democratic rallying cry from the minority leadership.

If Scalia or Thomas is nominated to become Chief, he's going to get confirmed. That was, is, and will be a given unless one of them is caught in the bushes with a 15 year old.

The more important question is who does chimpy nominate to replace rehnquist. It would be hard for it to be someone worse than Rehnquist, apart from their being young and around a long time. But in theory, the Dems could filibuster a Rehnquist clone, forcing chimpy into picking someone more moderate, which swings the court ever so slightly.

The really important moment comes when/if during Chimpy's term one of the more moderate/liberal members of the court leaves...then Chimpy has a chance to shift the balance even further to the right. This deal lets the Dems filibuster that choice until the end of this Congress; and if the vacancy on the court occurs in the last year of Chimpy's term, its gonna get bottled up...so there's one year of risk...

onenote

We have the Fillabuster and Republicans got crap!!!

then they kill it. This agreement carries no guarantees and this pack of Republicans is no more trustworthy than any other. As for the Republicans, they won three of their nominees being voted onto the bench without delay - and Bush has not agreed to withdraw the other Nazi nominees, so they will be back and we will be right in this same situation again - only after having caved on this round...

"...We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit)..."

These are the 3 we DON'T want! Why are they calling this a DEAL?

This is a deal, A BAD deal


:banghead: :mad:

we did good. despite what some of you may think. lets not waste time picking this and each other apart. unity brothers and sisters!!! whatever the outcome, it is now what it is. lets win the next battle more decisively

but don't expect to others who see this more negatively than you to follow your lead.

I sat here and called Senators most of the day so I'm going to claim victory. Stay where you are and wallow.Those that lead don't need followers. We don't look behind.

And have had Reid forced to "slow down business"? Those are the only real other option here, and we lose in all of them.

A lot of people don't seem to understand that the Republicans actually held all the cards on this one.

To deny them total victory is a victory we dearly need.

On to defeating Bolton!!!

They get the 3 most extreme- A White Supremacist, A whore for Corporate Interests, and a Black woman that thinks government should be eliminated for the D.C. Bench? Quite a deal. I'll take the the Nukes.

Not taking the deal would mean 3-5 months of Nothing getting done in Washington, Big F*cking Deal! That also means, no more 3am emergency appropriations bills, loaded with pork and un-debated provisions.

How long you figure they could have kept that up? And it would also have meant NO More 2000 page, "pass this bill now with out reading it" bills, when you have to read all 2000 pages of therefores and whereases.

I'd rather have taken the grid lock over this 2x4 up the ASS!:mad: :nuke: :grr:

from the jaws of short-term defeats--it might have been worth it to see the GOP destroy the Senate in order to hasten their ultimate obliteration.

I guess I can't quite see destruction of the Senate as a victory for anybody. I am not convinced it could hasten their ultimate obliteration because people weren't paying attention.

The Repugs had the votes to kill judicial filibusters. Most people weren't paying that much attention (see new CBS poll numbers) and they would've gotten away with it. The Dems could've shut down the govt, but that's a risky strategy (remember what happened when the repugs did it during Clinton's term -- it was a huge mistake for the repugs). So the Dems don't have to pursue a risky strategy.

And if Rehnquist steps down, a lot more attention will be paid to the nomination for S Ct and if the repugs try to kill the filibuster to force through an extremist it will blow up in their face.

We clearly won this round.

onenote

Shutting down the Senate (except for appropriations) would be a far cry from shutting down the government. But it would have destroyed any chances of Bush getting any of his agenda passed until the election of 2006. And that's a good thing in itself.

The moderate Dems caved here. Their testicles went slurp into their abdominal cavities. And Reid disappointed me by accepting this.

What are the odds all the Dems will agree that the standard of "extraordinary circumstances" are being met? What with Leiberman and Blanche Lincoln and other cowards in the party?

but I'd be willing to bet that it would've been portrayed in the media and interpreted by the public as the Dems being obstructionist...not that it should be viewed that way, but that's what probably would happen.

onenote

repubs under Clinton, why are they now the majority party?


Compromise with them is like compromising with Hitler -- We'll let you have the Sudetenland if you leave the rest of Czechoslovakia alone. Our side compromises by not giving away the whole thing, their side compromises by taking less than the whole thing. But they still take, and we give.

We never win, when we compromise.

I think as soon as the Dems try any new filibuster, it's going to start all over again

Edit to correct html typo

Not that I ever doubted that they would . . . errr, sure.

Here is how the South Florida Sun Sentinel reported it:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/ny-ussen0524,0,1792793.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines


Deal reached over judicial nominees

BY J. JIONI PALMER
WASHINGTON BUREAU
Posted May 23 2005, 10:24 PM EDT

WASHINGTON -- Stepping back from a partisan donnybrook of historic proportions, a bipartisan group of senators agreed Monday night to preserve the Democrats' potential to block judicial nominees while allowing a vote on most of those who have been blocked.

Weeks of tension and partisan warfare seemed to evaporate as 14 senators from both parties went before cameras to announce a compromise their leaders had been unable to reach. The standoff had threatened to bring legislative business to a halt and obliterate what remaining comity there is in the capital.

<snip>

Shortly after the pact was announced, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) came to the Senate floor to say it had "some good news and it has some disappointing news and it will require careful monitoring."

<snip>

He (John Warner) said each time the working group sat down to begin negotiating, Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest current serving senator, reminded all why they were there: "country, institution, next us."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What on earth is a "donnybrook"?

We need to send major KUDOS to Senator Byrd!

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

The fighting that goes on at every family get-together the Maddox/Brewer/Weese's have had for the last 100 years!

We're a feisty bunch (w/alot of Taurus's!).

Basically, a free-for-all ... if you've never participated in one - you haven't lived a complete life!

This page has a very good description.

<http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-don1.htm>

A scene of uproar and disorder; a heated argument.

And pretty good eats!

Here is Russ Feingold's statement on this deal:

This is not a good deal for the U.S. Senate or for the American people. Democrats should have stood together firmly against the bullying tactics of the Republican leadership abusing their power as they control both houses of Congress and the White House. Confirming unacceptable judicial nominations is simply a green light for the Bush administration to send more nominees who lack the judicial temperament or record to serve in these lifetime positions.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/05/05/200552327.html

Courtesy the freeper fascist whiners at Free Republic:

----------------------------------------------------

Dobson Blasts Filibuster 'Betrayal'

5/23/2005 9:31:00 PM

To: National Desk

Contact: Christopher Norfleet of Focus on the Family, 719-548-4570 or culturalissues@focusaction.org

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., May 23 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Focus on the Family Action Chairman Dr. James C. Dobson today issued the following statement, upon the announcement by members of the U.S. Senate that a "compromise" had been reached on the filibuster issue:

"This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats. Only three of President Bush’s nominees will be given the courtesy of an up-or-down vote, and it's business as usual for all the rest. The rules that blocked conservative nominees remain in effect, and nothing of significance has changed. Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist would never have served on the U. S. Supreme Court if this agreement had been in place during their confirmations. The unconstitutional filibuster survives in the arsenal of Senate liberals.

"We are grateful to Majority Leader Frist for courageously fighting to defend the vital principle of basic fairness. That principle has now gone down to defeat. We share the disappointment, outrage and sense of abandonment felt by millions of conservative Americans who helped put Republicans in power last November. I am certain that these voters will remember both Democrats and Republicans who betrayed their trust."

----

James C. Dobson, Ph.D. is a psychologist, author, radio broadcaster and founder of Focus on the Family Action. Founded in 2004, Focus on the Family Action is an action organization dedicated to the preservation of the moral and cultural values upon which our nation was founded.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

/© 2005 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=47847

Gary Bauer Calls Senate Judicial Deal a 'Sell Out'

5/23/2005 10:01:00 PM

To: National Desk

Contact: Kristi Hamrick of American Values, 571-244-6324 (703 same as 571)

WASHINGTON, May 23 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Former Presidential Candidate Gary Bauer issued the following statement late Monday as news of the "travesty" to justice deal on stalled judicial nominees was released.

The President of American Values said: "This is a sad day for our nation. The desire of millions of Americans to restore balance to our federal courts has been thwarted behind closed doors by 14 senators. Only three of President Bush's appointees are guaranteed an up or down vote under this sell out.

"Under this agreement it is now more likely that radical social change will continue to be forced on the American people by liberal courts committed to same sex marriage, abortion on demand and hostility to religious expression. The Republicans who lent their names to this travesty have undercut their President as well as millions of their most loyal voters. Shame on them all."

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

/© 2005 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=47850

they're at least as divided as we are on the subject.

What most people don't seem to realize is this was a
(temporary) victory of the corporate interest lobby over
evangelical right.
The corporate interests lobbied like mad to get the
Republicans to back down from the nuclear option.
They feared Dems shutting down the Senate, and with it the
advancement of their agenda.
Fundies vs fat cats - the war has just begun.

Skip to comments.

^^ ACTION ALERT ** Tell Sen. Frist to immediately bring up a vote Saad or Meyers
U.S. Senate ^ | TODAY | David C. Osborne

Posted on 05/23/2005 10:37:44 PM PDT by davidosborne

IF FRIST REALLY HAS A PROBLEM WITH THE DEAL MADE TODAY....

Then he'll bring up a vote on Saad or Meyers right after Owen........and force the 7 Little back stabbers to actually have to vote agains their own constituents and for keeping a filibuster....or cave and vote against a filibuster.
Frist, Bill- (R - TN) Class I 509 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-3344 Web Form: frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutSenatorFrist.ContactForm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1409172/posts

and a plague on both their houses!

he is alienating those who compromised -- now let it tear them to pieces.

It can't be emphasized enough that the punitive nutball in the WH isn't following the tradition of "advise & consent" & is 99% responsible for the schoolyard-caliber infighting going on. Like other presidents before him, he should be consulting the Senate about possible nominations before sending his choices to the Senate. Period.

I believe there are many rational citizens who are fed up with the pandering to the religious fanatics, & providing they know that the nutball isn't making the attempt to work with the Senate on judicial nominees, his approval ratings can only go down further. The traditional advise & consent role of the Senate, as well as this administration's refusal to work with the Senate, should be emphasized again & again.

If I could I would like to try a historic parallel. Most people believe the turning point of the war in the Pacific (WWII) was at the Battle of Midway (where the Japanese Imperial Fleet suffered a crushing defeat). Often overlooked was the earlier Battle of the Coral Sea. The naval battle yielded something of a draw, but the most important outcome was that the Japanese invasion fleet was forced to return to base. Up to that point in the war, the Japanese had been successful in all their planned actions. It is important to note that at that point of the war the US fleet was too small to continue to sustain such losses.
I believe that up to this point Bush and the Republicans have pretty much gotten their way; The War in Iraq, the Patriot Act, Clear Skies, etc. The Dems have stopped this (by standing firm and negotiating) while suffering a significant loss (3 nominees). They can't afford to keep making deals like this, but hopefully they will go on the attack soon (Memogate or Bayoil). This would seem to explain the unhappiness on the Republican side, at not getting their way. :)

but I think this was a victory for the Democrats.

The chess board offered only: (1) nuclear option change of rules through which any Supreme Court nominee would be confirmed without threat of filibuster, and only shutting down the Senate to counter; or (2) let the first three through (which may be the least reprehensible, given the strategy of ordering the nominees by the GOP and preserving the filibuster threat for the Supreme Court nominee(s).

Most importantly, it split the Republicans, who have been a Reich-like monolith, whipped into shape, and allowed some of them to cross the aisle (to a degree) and pave the way for them to cross the aisle (to a greater degree) in the future.

Vote on the nuclear option and win: Filibuster protected and all extremist judges defeated.

Didn't Reid say he had 49 votes sewn up?

Now we get 3 terrible judges, and the Republicans get to determine if Dem filibusters in the future are reasonable or not - and if not, we're 3 judges down and still facing the nuclear option.

Also, what about the implicit admission by the Dems that these 3 judges did not represent extreme circumstances? They've admitted that they were being unreasonable.

"Also, what about the implicit admission by the Dems that these 3 judges did not represent extreme circumstances? They've admitted that they were being unreasonable."

From Senator John Cornyn

"The agreement announced last night acknowledges that Owen, Brown, and Pryor should never have been filibustered in the first place."

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/cornyn200505240801.asp

Rightwing treachery at it's lowest.
Just check out this wildly detached use of out of
context quotes from the same story:
'Yet Senator Robert Byrd reminded the world just last week that our Founders did not tolerate filibusters — that “the rules adopted by the United States Senate in April 1789 included a motion for the previous question,” which “allowed the Senate to terminate debate” by majority vote. And just yesterday, he conceded that “the so-called nuclear option has been around for a long time. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that out.” '

It's not even close to the original meaning! Bird wasn't talking about founding principle, he was refering to how long the Republican's 'nuclear option' plan had been in the works! And to think that people will eat this up!

WE ALREADY HAD THAT RIGHT.

Meanwhile, the repukes got exactly what they wanted. As usual.

Freaking spineless jellyfish will never learn they can't win against this ruthless crop of creeps by taking the high road. The only thing it does is give those in the gutter easy access to your back side. Trust me, THEY know what to do with it too.

The big losers are Frist and Chimp. Frist because his bully act was undercut by a bi-partisan coalition and Chimp because he's getting less than 100%. Chimp just can't seem to win these days.

There's lots of teeth-gnashing up above, but I think we should all relax and enjoy the facts that this Memo of Agreement only applies to the 109th. We, as the minority, have actually widened a crack in Repug solidarity and most beautiful, the Chimp got scolded.

Our republic will survive the confirmation of three judges from the lowest ideological order.

Next big story is going to be the stem-cell bill. Can't wait to see Chimpy cast his first veto on that and then have that veto overriden.

understanding. I mean it seems we get to keep our right to filibuster as long as we don't use it. Another sell out IMO.

The deed may not be perfect, but it's done, over, past tense.
IMHO, right now we need to be looking at how we
can best apply the deal to our benefit.

... the GOP knows it and that's why they're still talking it up. The problem with judicial nominees is likely bigger than it was before.

Do you think all the Dem's who think the compromise is a victory are going to work as hard on judicial nominations as the GOP who are convinced they got shafted?

We need to stop looking at this as a victory - since at this point we've won nothing - and look at it as a shift in the landscape and we should still be angry about the 3 judges we're passing on, and our decreased ability to filibuster, and we should be thinking how to best exploit this compromise, if possible.

The GOP is still moving forward on ruining the judiciary. Luckily for them they are not wasting time with victory declarations.

what bashing the deal will accomplish.
If I thought it would accomplish something I'd bash it too!
The 'deal' is just a temporary reprieve.
We'll be right back where we started before long,
except this time around we'll be able to do battle from
a point of greater strength, and credibility.
I believe Dems will be in a better position
because, for one, the fact they were successful
at getting long-standing Republicans to go against the
leadership (dictatorship) and reach a 'compromise',
and two, the resulting rift it has created within the GOP itself.
What they've done, in essance is to define, and isolate the wackos.

The repukes have backed us up in a corner with this. All * has to do is start selecting all his judicial nominees from the far radical right wing. Naturally, we will start to filibuster. Then the repukes will claim that we are not living up to this compromise in good faith and that the filibuster was supposed to be used in only an extreme cases.

The moment any Dem tries to use a filibuster there are going to be a chorus to the fact that it is the Dems breaking this compromise. Also this is only for the 109th congress. With the voting machines out there, how will we take back the senate? Then this compromise is no longer in effect.

I would say that's as good as any reason to bash the agreement.



We will be in a weaker position because the filibuster now has a higher standard of reasonableness applied to it than it did before. If we EVER use it people will start to push for the nuclear option again.

The success of the compromise depends of the GOP acting in good faith. I have zero expectation that they will.



When 7 moderates separate themselves from 42 wackos, it's not the wackos that are isolated.

... to bash the deal is to, hopefully, discourage such deals in the future. I don't want my representatives, nor people who may write or phone our representatives, to encourage such behavior.

You don't ignore the past, you learn from it.

assume an extreme 'all or nothing' stance at this
point in time would be risky at best, devastating at worst..

I feel we now have a filibuster we can't use.

If I'm right then we are already devastated.

I hope I'm wrong but I think we're going to see the calibre of the nominees and confirmees will decline from this point because we have been neutered by this compromise.

The GOP will quickly start to test the compromise with more awful candidates, we'll be forced to filibuster, we'll be declared in breach of the aggreement, and the nuclear option will happen anyway but this time with the blessing of the people.

I think, with this compromise, the GOP gets the nuclear option and looks like the good guys - eventually.

> Dear MoveOn member,
>
> President Bush, Bill Frist and the radical right-wing of the Republican Party have failed in their attempt to seize absolute power over the courts. Together, we've stopped the "nuclear option" — for now.
>
> Last night at 7:30pm, with only hours to go before Senator Frist rose in the Senate to try to break the rules and seize power to appoint extreme judges, 14 senators announced they had struck a deal. As powerful far-right leader James Dobson put it, "This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats...The rules that blocked conservative nominees remain in effect, and nothing of significance has changed."
>
> For once, we agree with Mr. Dobson. With 7 Republicans pledging to oppose Frist's scheme as long as the Democrats stick to the standard for filibusters they've used all along — only using them in extraordinary circumstances — the "nuclear option" is dead unless Republicans break their word. And if that happens we will be in a much stronger position to stop them.
>
> Over the past months, hundreds of thousands of us have made calls, wrote letters, supported ads, and gone to local events to help stop the nuclear option. So tonight, we'd like to invite you to a victory conference call and debriefing session at 8:00 pm ET / 5:00 PM PT with Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic Leader in the Senate, to talk about what this really means and what's coming next, and answer your questions. We hope you can join us.
>
> To join the conference call with Senator Reid, just go to:
>
> http://www.moveonpac.org/victorywebcast?id=5564-2811579-9INw6GWaxHCd_p2ryKvnwQ&t=2
>
> Last night's resolution was a real victory, but it came at a heavy price. Three of the nominees the Democrats agreed not to filibuster, Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and William Pryor, will now head to confirmation votes in the Senate where they may well be approved. Their record of corporate bias and outright hostility to the basic rights of ordinary Americans poses a serious threat that we will have to contend with for years to come.
>
> You can see the full, original text of the agreement at:
> http://www.c-span.org/pdf/senatecompromise.pdf)
>
> Had Senator Frist succeeded in executing the "nuclear option" we wouldn't just be facing three terrible judges on the US Courts of Appeals — we'd be watching one party take absolute control of all branches of government for the first time ever. And radical Republicans would have had complete power to stack the Supreme Court with unchecked extremists and to roll back decades of progress on all our most cherished rights.
>
> Of course, the Republicans could still decide to go back on their word and break the agreement at some point in the future. But even if that happens they have already failed in their primary goal: to eliminate the filibuster now, before there's a vacancy on the Supreme Court -- before Americans are watching and it's clear how much is at stake.
>
> So why wasn't Republican Leader Frist able to translate his 10-vote advantage in the Senate into 51 votes for his "nuclear" scheme? A large part of the answer is you.
>
> Over the last few months MoveOn members have racked up a simply amazing string of accomplishments in our fight to save the courts. Together, we have:
>
> * Submitted 59,645 letters to the editors of 3,162 newspapers
> * Placed 118,016 calls to Congress (that we know of!)
> * Held 1,539 house meetings to form local organizing teams
> * Placed tens of thousands of signs in your windows, all across the country
> * Gathered at over 1,000 theaters to pass out "Save the Republic" flyers to Star Wars fans
> * Knocked on thousands of doors to spread the word, in almost 1,000 neighborhoods nationwide
> * Raised $1.3 million to fund the campaign, with an average contribution of $43
> * Supported the creation and placement of 4 television commercials, radio commercials, and 2 print ads running in target states and nationwide
> * Organized 192 simultaneous rallies in all 50 states
> * Submitted 580,371 signatures and comments opposing the nuclear option
> * Organized round-the-clock emergency "Citizen Filibusters" in key target states, and signed up to organize 108 more nation-wide — before breathing a sigh of relief when we won before it was time to start.
>
> Frist couldn't get 50 of his 55 Republicans to support the "nuclear option" in large part because we and our allies convinced them it would be political suicide to do so. If there had been no grassroots movement to stop the "nuclear option," it's almost certain that today George Bush and Bill Frist would hold absolute power to stack the Supreme Court and we would be powerless to protect our most basic rights. Preventing that nightmare is an accomplishment to feel proud of.
>
> The fight to protect our courts and, as the Star Wars fans say, to "Save the Republic," goes on. There are more Republican assaults we need to block, from John Bolton to Social Security privitization, and we'll need all hands on deck to help shift the balance in Washington in the 2006 elections. Our next immediate focus will be on Tom DeLay and Republican leaders' abuse of power in the House — starting with petition deliveries to local Republican offices next Wednesday (more on this soon).
>
> With a failed Republican leadership transparently consumed with power and out of touch with the nation, and a growing, powerful grassroots community churning out victories against overwhelming odds — the prospects for change are looking good.
>
> Thank you — really, THANK YOU — for everything you've done. Democracy won the night, because of you.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> –-Ben, Eli, Carrie, Matt and the MoveOn PAC Team
> Tuesday, May 24th, 2005
>
> PAID FOR BY MOVEON PAC
> Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.