Message from Senator Bill Frist to Democrats: I’ll give you debate time but absolutely no filibuster.
So now least we know this: despite on-again-off-again announcements about whether Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid are still talking to try and head off the “nuclear option” that would ban filibusters on judicial nominees it’s clear that they are still talking — and proposing.
The latest is Frist’s compromise, as reported by Reuters:
Frist’s proposal seeks to avert a showdown over Republican threats to change Senate rules in order to ban procedural roadblocks known as filibusters against judicial nominees.
Democrats have filibustered 10 of Bush’s candidates whom they have deemed “right-wing ideologues,” and have vowed retaliation in response to any ban on the filibuster, which permits unlimited debate.
Frist, the Senate majority leader, said he would “guarantee” up to 100 hours to debate any nominee to the appeals courts or U.S. Supreme Court. But Frist also said he would require that they all get a confirmation vote, meaning filibusters against these candidates would be banned.
“It may not be a perfect proposal for either side, but it’s the right proposal for America,” said Frist as he stood in the Senate.
Ostensibly, this seems like a start, but doesn’t address the crux of the issue Democrats are pressing: their right as a minority party to use the filibuster if they wish to use it.
And Reid — who became Minority Leader amid press predictions that he would be a colorless, behind-the-scenes leader — once again showed his genius for terse, highly colorful sound bytes in a short politicial attention span age:
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, called the proposal a “big wet kiss to the far right,” which has pushed to ban judicial filibusters and get more conservatives on the bench.
Reid also made it clear he’s will continue to study this and any other proposals. So what happens next? Political Sciencist Steven Taylor, aka Poliblogger, got an email from Steven J. Duffield, of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, summarizing the points. He carries it in full in this post here, along with this mini-analysis:
My guess is that Democrats will be unimpressed, as it really is an agreement for them to disarm in return for 100 hours of debate, something that they theoretically already would have post-cloture. I am not certain really, what the Democrats would gain from this (but I have not fully digested it all yet). Still, this sets the stage for a rules change if the Democrats reject the offer.
Later, after reading Reids response, Taylor writes:”Pretty much the response is what I expected: no thanks. This all strikes me as attempt to take the PR high ground before moving to engage the so-called “nuclearâ€? option.”
So in this game of high-stakes chicken, the GOP’s social conservatives are pressuring Frisk not to yield on steamrollering over the filibuster. And there would be howls of protest from the Democratic base if Reid gave up his party’s right to use the filibuster.
Who wins? It’s hard to say. But in the case of the sound bytes, Reid’s “wet kiss” will have a far longer shelf life than Frist’s pro-forma statement about his compromise being what’s “right for America” — although many Democrats, centrists, independents and moderate Republicans might agree that Frist’s agenda is “right.”
The Washington Post, in an editorial, frames this battle this way:
The principles these more extreme combatants are upholding are not, upon close examination, impressive. Liberals are really arguing for the right to frustrate majority rule. Mr. Frist is really arguing that Democrats should not be able to do to Republican nominees what Republican senators only recently did to Democratic nominees, using a different set of procedural tricks. The partisanship on both sides has the unhealthy effect of further politicizing American attitudes toward the judiciary.
Read today’s earlier post.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.