The Politburo Diktat

It's all about the party, mi amigo.
here

That's what I think, anywho.

Yeah I don't get why the bitching and knashing of teeth. I can understand why the hard right wingnuts are upset. I think it's fair to note compromise is not their strong suit and never has been. When your initial premise is that empirical facts are trumped by revealed truth, and that you have a mandate from the creator of the universe to force your ideology on every manjack, that can happen.
Politics is compromise. Which beats the hell out of head bashing even if everyone feels liek they gave up too much. he winners here are the American People who will retain a funcitonal Senate in the midst of a War, instead of a bunch of candy asses engaged in a pissing contest. And as far as I'm concerned, that trumps ideology.

Sorry but to me the chance of sharia law being imposed by some jihaddie isn't as likely as mandatory gun grabbing or gay marriage imposed by some unelected judicial weenie. The country won't survive more morons like Souter and Breyer.

And this from the guy that manufactured a vitriolic evolution debate 24/7 denouncing everyone who disagreed with him as liar or lunatic?

Get over yourself, pinhead.

Is nomination of judges the country's top priority? Numero uno? The big enchilada? More critical to our security than the war on terror? More important to our economic health than competing with China and India?

I think YES!

For the Main Stream Bloggers to rant on and on about sell-outs, disappointments, cowards, Party traitors, etc. etc. is shameful. And why do they indulge in such divisive nonsense? Because, in a Pavlovian-like reaction, they have learned over time that harshness and vitriol sells, or at least draws traffic.

In other words, "they don't agree with me, therefore they must be arguing in bad faith." What a pathetic attempt to dismiss contrary opinions!

I've read much of the overheated commentary on both sides, and most of it strikes me as sincere. A lot of it is stupid, too, but that doesn't mean it's phony.

I'll tell you why it's important. For the past 30 years or more, the courts have been growing more and more imperial, unchecked and unbalanced by any sense of their own limitations or the role assigned them by the framers of the Constitution. We've had activist judges like David Souter and Sandra O'Connor appointed by conservative presidents. At last we have a president willing to appoint judges to balance the drift, and those who benefit from the drift -- because they don't win elections -- will fight the correction with a power grab masquerading as minority rights.

The imperial judiciary has had an insidious effect throughout society -- the way we word our laws, our approach to rule enforcement down to the school level, the extra legal costs we pay in every area of life -- and the capriciousness of our judges leaves us uncertain from day to day what longstanding social agreement is going to be overturned tomorrow.

This may be our last chance, because eight years of Hillary appointing judges like Ruth Ginsberg and beyond could make the leftward drift irrecoverable.

I'm willing to wait and see. If President Bush's nominations to the Supreme Court, whoever they may be, are filibustered, then this deal is a failure and Sen. McCain is to blame. If President Bush's nominations to the Supreme Court are not filibustered, then this deal is a success and Sen. McCain is a hero. There's no in-between on this. Preserving Senate tradition counts for nothing in my book - who cares about the inflated egos of a bunch of windbags? The only issue is whether the President can get his guys on the Court at a time when he his party has a 55-45 majority in the Senate.

The bloggers screaming about sell-outs have no idea how real Hillary's chances are in 2008. Do they want no filibuster against her?

Why don't you tell us what you really think..............

Why don't you tell us what you really think..............

"The filibuster deal is a good thing"

Only in that it stops the childish debate so they can get to truly more important things. Otherwise it wasn't much of a compromise. It really came down to the dems agreeing to not filibuster on 3 nominees in exchange for 2 nominees possibly being withdrawn. Frist has already moved for cloture on 1 of the 2 nominees the agreement stated would be withdrawn essentially. Don't get me wrong. I'm not blaming Frist for something here. He wasn't part of this agreement. I'd blame him for other things, but not that. Now when it comes down to it, at least some (enough) of the Senators that are party to this agreement are going to bail on it. Basically what happened is the dems gave up on 3 nominees and that's about it. The ramming continues. The complete disregard of the wishes and objections of the apparent minority in this country continues.

I'm starting to think that maybe the plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11 should have hit the Capitol.

Anyone who has really looked at the nominees that were rejected would acknowledge from their judging records and public speaches that they are piss poor jurists not fit for lifetime appointments to the higher courts.
Now their sloppy legal reasoning will be inflicted on the American people. What for? Because they can be relied on the be unerringly conservative? Funny I thought being a decent jurist came first.
By caving in the Dems have set the bar low low low for the minds we allow on the bench. The Senate live but the Republic rots.
Next up Bolton.

Coalition of the chillin'.

I was just going to mention the Coalition of the Chillin'...hahaha

I can understand why the hard right wingnuts are upset

Uh, I'm a hard right wingnut and I'm not upset. I think it's more a situation of reactionaries who have no sense of political strategy, no sense of the "big picture." I guess it puts the lie to the meme that we're all minions of Karl Rove, 'cause they sure don't seem to get what works.

I do think judicial appointments are important, although the War on Terror IS more so. Judicial appointments are number one domestically, though. What I don't get is why going nuclear right now is the number one priority for these people. I mean look, Priscilla Owen won the voice vote today, and she was the one the left hated the most! Besides, if the Dems try to pull the "extraordinary circumstances" crap for nominees like these now, the nuclear option is still available. What's the big deal? Nothing. They're just being ridiculous.

Right - Bush's peculiar talent is letting the opposition save face even as he gets his way. It's called 'politics'

Beth,

A different POV than mine, but leading to the same punchline: "Stop the screaming."

Lazar,

Sheesh. THIS post doesn't earn a nomination to the Coalition of the Chillin? Do I gotta beg, or what? :)

I think it's a lousy deal, but that's because I don't trust the Democrats to honour the spirit of the agreement. If they do, then I'll consider it a fair deal and the Democrats will regain some respect.

But I'm not screaming about it. Maybe because I'm an Australian...

"but that's because I don't trust the Democrats to honour the spirit of the agreement."

What the dems do now is irrelevant. That was sort of one of my points. The repubs still hold all the cards, and more now. There is still the nuclear option. This agreement didn't take it off the table and even if it tried, it couldn't. It's a very questionable tactic and the people who were for threatening with it in the first place aren't trustworthy to uphold an agreement to not use it. The dems caved on this whether they realise it or not. The people on the right upset that the filibuster wasn't destroyed are self centered control freaks who have no interest in anyone being allowed to have ideas different from their's. It looks like the dems may be trying to save face by suggesting the repubs may want to filibuster the Stem Cell research bills and make an issue of it. It almost looks to me as though he's trying to set it up to look like the reason they did this was so he could talk about repubs filibustering when they're in the majority.

Oops. I meant to mention Reid in relation to the "he" in "It almost looks to me as though he's trying to set it up"

To my very welcome Leftie commenters,

I notice a distinct three part form to many of your comments.

1. General agreement with my post
2. Expression of disgust with harsh partisan rhetoric
3. A harsh partisan excoriation of BushCo

"To my very welcome Leftie commenters,

I notice a distinct three part form to many of your comments.

1. General agreement with my post
2. Expression of disgust with harsh partisan rhetoric
3. A harsh partisan excoriation of BushCo"

If I'm considered a "Leftie commenter" :) then:

1. Mostly. However I do recall a good number, from both sides of the political spectrum, of those bloggers coming TOGETHER across political beliefs to support certain issues. Was it the Bankruptcy bill?? The Shiavo situation?? I can't recall at the moment. There were at least 2 recent instances. They can break from the hardcore partisan stances from time to time. Those moments gave me a lot of hope.

2. The partisan rhetoric is getting VERY tiring.

3. How can you offer a "harsh partisan excoriation" when we're disgusted "with harsh partisan rhetoric" :)? I'd have to say I lean left of center if there is such a thing, but I certainly take the time to point at the dems when they screw sh*t up too. So, all in all, I'd have to say I can't be partisan as I don't align myself with a party. Biased? Ofcoarse. Everyone is biased in some fashion. The more you recognize it the better you can be about controlling it.

Oh yeah, forget to give credit to the repubs and dems right now for REALLY working together (unlike this filibuster compromise) to get Stem Cell research bills moving.

The people on the right upset that the filibuster wasn't destroyed are self centered control freaks who have no interest in anyone being allowed to have ideas different from their's.

Eh?

The filibuster is simply a means for preventing the Senate from voting. Why, exactly, should it be retained? Democratic senators are perfectly free to have their own ideas, and to vote according to those ideas, and to lose the vote because they are in the minority, because the people decided it should be that way.

Why should they be able to block a vote in this way? Why, in effect, should judicial confirmations require a supermajority?

P.S. I'm a libertarian-leaning Australian centrist, and I backed the nuclear option.

P.P.S. I also back stem cell research.

Herr Commissar,

You're gonna need to chill on the fact that when most agree with you (TCF seconds you here), it ain't absolute. For example, Kos and Atrios having their serious flaws, they can't be grouped with Malkin and Powerline. I recently read a Right blogger distancing himself from more anti-semitic remarks by Pat Buchanan. However, insisting his extremist counterpart on the Left is Howard Dean, is hocking up mule fritters.

The unyielding hysterics of the Lefty 'Whales' you accurately describe, remind me of Gay Republicans trolling for attention. I find myself criticizing AMERICABlog's Aravosis for his nasty attack on John Kerry's opposition to a Gay Marriage plank in his state's party platform. My support for civil unions is a direct result of such reckless advocacy, from an influential sissy now drunk with power!

Let's remember the general rule that "The less Congress does, the better."

Filibusters, delays, lenghtening the process: GOOD!

Efficency: BAD!

I like that Pixy analysis. Why, exactly, should a 55-45 majority give away its power to confirm the ABA rated qualified judges appointed by the majorities' president?

Would Dems GIVE AWAY power like that?

And if Hillary wins in 2008, do you think she will have a Dem Senate? No. So you don't need to filibuster. You vote her judges down.

Yes, one day Dems may have the White House and the Senate again. Know what? That means the President will get his/her judicial appointments confirmed. You know why? I read that is the way it works; in a document called the Constitution. No supermajority required.

Filibuster on legislation is fine. There is no constitutional requirement to pass more laws.

There is a constitutional requirement to give advice and consent (or lack of consent) to appointments of the President. Empty positions are bad. The judges (and all Article I appointments) are entitled to a vote -- not a "never vote."

"Why don't you tell us what you really think... -- Rusty"

Because, in a Pavlovian-like reaction, he has learned over time that harshness and vitriol sells, or at least draws traffic.

And because he is an;

"unsuccessful 21st Century Turing machine, imitating human imagination, but not quite achieving it."

And because all of his visitors are truely foolish enough to think he is really a Republican.

I'm a lefty commenter who enjoys reading thoughtful conservatives and libertarians and often disagree with liberals, leftists and just about anyone I happen to disagree with. Just clicked on someone's blogroll to get here.

Actually, the main expression on DailyKos and a lot of other Left/Liberal blogs I visit was exactly the same as yours. The compromise was a good thing.

ps. JUST SAY NO TO HILLARY IN 2008!

"Yes dear. Conspiracy theories really do come true." (tuck, tuck)

Good God are you full of yourself, Commissar. First it's this:

[Malkin, Kos, Krempasky, Josh Marshall, Captain Ed, Atrios, Hewitt, Kevin Drum and Powerline] are a disgrace ... They are unsuccessful 21st Century Turing machines, imitating human imagination, but not quite achieving it.

And then, this:

And why do they indulge in such divisive nonsense? Because, in a Pavlovian-like reaction, they have learned over time that harshness and vitriol sells, or at least draws traffic. Thus, in the guise of thoughtful political commentary, they regularly churn out manufactured controversy. Even in a simple, easy-to-evalute case like the filibuster deal, they can't stop themselves from pumping their Sitemeters. It's beneath contempt.

Gotta love a guy who spews vitriol at people for supposedly spewing vitriol. Maybe your next post should an essay explaining why everyone's shit stinks except yours.

Between this blatant hypocrisy and questioning the patriotism of anyone who thinks judicial nominations are important, I have to say you've sunk much lower than any of the bloggers you attacked here. Of course you don't care. As you've already pointed out, "harshness and vitriol sells, or at least draws traffic," so I'm sure this post will draw plenty.