The filibuster "compromise"

I have to say I don’t like it. Not even the very well reasoned John Podhoretz can convince me otherwise.

What it appears to be to me is a short term victory for the Republicans and a long term victory for Democrats. Republicans will get to have three of – what is it 7? – the nominees that have been previously blocked by Democratic filibusters stand for an up/down vote in the Senate and the Democrats keep the ‘right’ to filibuster any nominee they wish under “extraordinary circumstances” – which is I think purposely vague in meaning.

We’re very likely going to have a Supreme Court justice retire before W’s tenure is over. How much money do you want to bet that WHOEVER is nominated to replace that retired justice, that they will be filibustered under the “extraordinary circumstances” reasoning?

This is what happens when ‘moderates’ get together at the table in Washington. The moderate Republicans cave and the Democrats essentially retain the power to do exactly what they want to, and that’s to obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. I’m very disappointed in how this turned out.

How is it we can have the House by a good margin and the Senate by a good margin as well as the Presidency, and still not accomplish our goals?

CavalierX says:

May 26, 2005 at 1:59 pm

My first thought upon hearing that the “compromise” was signed became the title of the rant I wrote about it: Democrats Win, Democracy Loses. Any deal in which the Democrats agree to temporarily stop shredding the Constitution in exchange for the promise not to shred it later unless they really, really want to is RIDICULOUS.

Sister Toldjah says:

June 1, 2005 at 8:57 pm

I’m totally against this “compromise” – I don’t like the idea that those 14 Senators are supposed to do the representing that the rest of them are supposed to do for their constituencies. John McCain doesn’t represent me. I want MY Senators representing me.