BuzzMachine… by Jeff Jarvis

I call avoiding stupidity victory, myself. I call moderation virtue.

I’d like to agree. But I can’t. This wasn’t compromise on the part of the Democrats, it was capitulation. Senators who have legitimate concerns about judicial activism stood across the table from senators willing to change the rules to get things their way - and they blinked. They backed down.

Here’s the quote from the Times article (BugMeNot or reg required) that Jeff references that I think is important (and in the 1^st pragraph, no less):

…a last-second agreement on Monday that defused - at least for now - a potentially explosive parliamentary showdown over eliminating Senate filibusters against judicial nominees. (emphasis mine)

It’s that phrase, “at least for now” that is the problem in my view. And I certainly don’t see this with Kos’s optimism. Progressives didn’t win in this one; in fact, no one did. The showdown wasn’t averted; it was postponed, and when it comes down to it, Senator Bill Frist and his allies lost nothing of any meaning.

Tell me that Frist and the ideological majority leadership will have even a moment’s hesitation in threatening some procedural hocus pocus when the 1^st Supreme Court nominee comes to the floor. When a judge with a clear idealogical bias, who favors corporations over workers or thinks that privacy is a privilege and not a right is nominated to the highest court in our country, do you think the right wing of the Republican party will stop at anything to have their way? This rule change will come up again, and soon, and those 7 Republicans who were willing to commmit themselves to this compromise will face far more pressure to vote with the party then then they did this time around. Their political careers will be on the line, and I have no confidence that more than one of them will be able to withstand that pressure. They will cave and we’ll be right back where we are now, with far more at stake and a precedent of Democrats backing off from the conflict.

I’m all for moderation and compromise, and it’s certainly less than clear who would have been hurt more by a showdown over there nominees, but I don’t think the trade off was worth it.

Addition: Here’s one link to the text of the agreement.

Also, it’s very interesting to me to see how the right-leaning bloggers are up in arms against this. The links in Jeff’s post are good ones to follow, and Michelle Malkin’s reactions (link and link) are other good ones.
And yet more: here’s Russ Feingold’s statement (via extemporaneous excursions of expression).

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 24th, 2005 at 7:34 am and is filed under government and has the Technorati tags Judiciary Filibuster.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.