Senate Compromise

NYT reports Text of Senate Compromise on Nominations of Judges
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 the 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 (District of Columbia Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit) and Priscilla Owen (Fifth Circuit).

These are the three that the Dems were so upset about, and advertised against. Republicans should be able to use those advertisements, plus the fact that they were eventually approved, in future elections.

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

Since the Dems said that extraordinary circumstances required filibustering of the three that now got through, it shows that they were abusing the term extraordinary circumstances.

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 judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

It is unclear, but hopefully this means that if the Dems mount fillibusters against future nominees, Republicans have said that Part A was violated, and hence Part B no longer binds senators that signed it.

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.

Don't count on it.

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

Hugh Hewitt blogged Silver linings:

1. Nan Aron is unhappy --a very good sign indeed.
2. John McCain --a great American, a lousy senator, and a terrible Republican-- took himself out of serious contention in the GOP primaries of 2008. The McCain Caucus showed itself last night, and is united not by "moderation" but by enormous, towering ego.
3. Chuck Hagel did any presidential ambitions he nurtured enormous damage as well. He didn't sign the deal, but his public dithering for the last month fueled GOP confusion and encouraged the egomaniac caucus.
4. It will be much easier to persuade GOP voters to abandon Lincoln Chafee and Olympia Snowe in 2006. Worse than useless, defeating one or both of these incumbants will send a much needed message on how the party regards deals based on scissoring the Constitution.

The unfortunate results:

1. If Senator Frist can't talk Ohio's Mike DeWine and and South Carolina's Lindsey Graham off the ledge, voters will wonder how he can talk Great Britain and Italy into future coaltions of the willing. Everyone Republican who signed the document did so knowing they were betraying Frist. To recover, the Majority Leader will have to move quickly to get the blocked nominations on to the flooor and then the bench, and he will have to be the leader from day one on a Supreme Court nomination fight that is quickly and decisively won.
2. DeWine has never been other than a good senator and a solid Republican vote. His attempt last night to argue that this was a good deal may be sincere, but it doesn't say much for his grasp of politics on the big stage. I cannot believe this helped him in his re-election bid in '06.
3. Lindsey Graham's short speech about "we are at war, and kids are dying," was a low, low point for him. Soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are fighting and sometimes dying for freedom and human dignity, not for Senate "comity" and Robert Byrd's fuzzy grasp of history. The injustice done especially to William Meyer and Henry Saad is manifestly not what they are fighting for, and covering low political calculation and backroom deal-making--sometimes necessary but never noble-- in rhetoric about wartime is repulsive. Graham admitted that his folks at home will be angry, so he acted with full awareness that he was abandoning the people who put him into office.
4. No doubt cheerleaders for the "moderates" will think talk of dumping Chafee and Snowe, and ire at Graham and others is wrong-headed conservative partisanship. But they have never wanted ideas to govern in D.C., and center-right coaltions hang together on ideas, not interests. If there's any hope of keeping that coalition together and in charge for a good run of years, there have to be consequences for betrayal of the coaltion. Loss of ofice and/or status should be the consequence of unprincipled political behavior. It isn't anything but a political response to a political deal.

blogged

CQ blogged Based on reaction around the Internet, it appears that everyone except for the Senate and the media are unhappy about this compromise on judicial filibusters. Obviously, this gives the White House three of the most contested and vilified judicial nominees in the process, although quite frankly, the Democrats never put together any good argument against any of these three. The Left has to be pulling their hair out over Janice Rogers Brown especially, as elevating a libertarian-conservative black woman will make it tougher to argue that the GOP opposes African-Americans in key positions. However, those are the only three guaranteed to get cloture out of five nominees mentioned. Now in section B, the centrists have not pledged any guarantees of a vote for either Henry Saad or William Myers. However, they also do not call for either to be withdrawn, nor do they commit to blocking a vote. In fact, they have pledged to use their own discretion -- which may allow some of the Democrats to vote for cloture. I believe that both candidates may well get cloture, but that they have made a deal that some of the GOP centrists will vote against at least one of them in a floor vote, probably Saad. Saad may have sealed his own fate with his ill-advised e-mail attacking Debbie Stabenow in 2003, and the GOP may well have sacrificed him for that reason. William Myers may just get filibustered, as the GOP probably doesn't want to give him up.

The Unalienable Right blogged So the “moderate” Republicans - remember their names, McCain, DeWine, Snowe, Warner, Graham, Collins, and Chafee - have made a deal that achieves an up-or-down vote for three out of President Bush’s ten filibustered nominees. Thirty percent, a stunning victory! The deal looks like a win for the Democrats and a capitulation by the ever weak-kneed Republicans. The only way for Republicans to turn it into a victory will be if the above “moderates” grow the backbones that they didn’t have before making this deal. You can bet the Democrats’ invocation of “extraordinary circumstances” will be on a hair trigger.

Stephen Bainbridge blogged No word yet on what "extraordinary circumstances" means, but I think this is probably a good outcome.

Giacomo blogged I'll bet both Owen and Rogers Brown get better than 65 75 votes in the Senate. There will be a number of Democrats who won't go on record voting against the two female nominees. One of the reasons thay were filibustered is that it would be very difficult to vote against them.

Ace blogged Thank you, John McCain, for continuing to care so much about liberal media opinion and for continuing to suffer under the delusion that we're going to allow a Napoleon-complexed strutting peacock like you to be our President.

Anchoress blogged GOP has Majority…and spines of Jelly.

I am waiting to see the votes on Owen, Brown, and Pryor. If they are as high as I expect, it should really point out what the Dems were doing