|
| |
The Agreement Worse Than a
Filibuster
Government/Frank
Salvato, Managing Editor |
May 27, 2005
- Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid took to the Senate
floor and proclaimed that the agreement reached that allowed the Senate to
avert the "Constitutional Option” over President Bush’s judicial nominees
signified our "Republic was strong.” Once again, Mr. Reid is on the wrong
side of right. The deal struck to avoid the showdown on the president’s
judicial nominees proved only one thing, that the resolve of moderate
Republicans keeps moving the conservative movement in the wrong direction.
Whenever you see Reid, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi standing
in concert praising something that a group of Republicans agreed to you had
better acquire the "uh-oh” face and start looking at what was agreed upon to
see how the conservatives got screwed. This time it is rather obvious.
This agreement, which Reid, Kennedy et al, hail as being their vision of
cooperation between the two political parties, effectively achieved this:
- Three of the president’s nominees will get up-or-down votes free of
filibuster.
- The Democrats remain free to filibuster but only in "extraordinary
circumstances.”
- The Republicans in the Senate agree not to employ the "Constitutional
Option.”
Now, let’s look at this for what it is.
There were ten nominees that were being filibustered by the minority
Democrats in the US Senate. That number was whittled down to seven through
the Democrats idea of "compromise.” So, out of the ten judges in question
nominated by the president only three are going to receive an up-or-down
vote as mandated by Article II Section 2 of the US Constitution. I am
already hearing Homer Simpson saying "D’oh!”
The Democrats negotiated to reserve the right of filibustering judicial
nominations but only in "extraordinary circumstances.” Pay no attention to
the fact that no one bothered to define what might constitute an
"extraordinary circumstance.” This is perhaps the most comical part of the
"agreement.” I am all too certain that if we were able to witness Reid,
Kennedy, Schumer and Pelosi after they retreated from the public eye after
hailing this agreement as an example of bi-partisan cooperation we would
have seen them rolling on the floor in laughter at how gullible the seven
moderate Republicans were to have agreed to such open-ended verbiage.
Face it, there is a better possibility of Osama bin Laden surrendering to
President Bush in the Oval Office within the next five minutes than there is
of someone on the liberal left and someone from the mainstream right
agreeing as to the definition of an "extraordinary circumstance.”
I can see it now, John McCain sitting in the Tonight Show guest seat ala
Hugh Grant and Jay Leno asking, "What were you thinking?!”
But the part of the agreement that makes it truly absurd is the fact that
the Republicans agreed not to employ the "Constitutional Option.” Sure, they
reserved the right to use it in the event that the Democrats chose to
utilize the filibuster unreasonably but there is that non-defined
"extraordinary circumstances” clause that will no doubt be used to justify
any filibuster the Democrats choose to employ. Although Senate Majority
Leader Bill Frist says that he has no qualms about employing the
"Constitutional Option” should the Democrats waver, he is held at the mercy
of the "McCain Seven,” and we have already witnessed their idea of
solidarity.
In summary, the Democrats got everything they wanted sans the up-or-down
votes on three of the ten judicial nominees sent to the Senate by President
Bush; nominees they insisted were too extreme to be confirmed. That wasn’t a
deal; it was an employed tactic that neutered the majority’s power and a
successful tactic at that.
And while the "McCain Seven” contend that their move was one of a strategic
nature seven of the ten judicial nominees will still feel the sting of
obstructionism. While the Republicans are "strategizing” the Democrats are
taking action. To put it another way, while the Republicans are still in the
defensive huddle the Democrats have already hiked the ball and are running
toward the goal line.
Bill Frist not only should have employed the "Constitutional Option,” he
should have applied it with malice! The Senate Republicans should have
passed the "Constitutional Option,” voted to approve President Bush’s
judicial nominees and then voted to reverse the "Constitutional Option,”
expanding the number of votes needed to achieve cloture back to the pre-Byrd
manipulated number of 67. If the situation was reversed and Kennedy – or
someone of his ilk – was the Senate majority leader you can bet something
like that would have happened.
Some may be saying that such a move would be an abuse of power, that
employing such tactics would only lead to massive demonstrations of
political partisanship unlike anything Washington DC has ever seen. I laugh
at that notion. We already have a massive demonstration of political
partisanship. The minority is manhandling the majority and the majority is
lackadaisical enough to allow it to happen.
No, employing such tactics is called "getting the job done.” Conservatives
all over the country gave the majority in the House and the Senate to the
Republicans because they wanted the job to "get done.” This agreement is a
slap in the face to every American who voted GOP in 2004.
It’s time to break the huddle Mr. Majority Leader. The Democrats have scored
and at this point we are losing.
Related Reading:
Democrats count victory in pact on judicial picks
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050525-122848-9451r.htm
The Deal’s No "Victory”
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200505240945.asp
|
|
