Extraordinary Circumstances,O'Connor's Replacement, and the Nuclear Option

[tritsofme]

I want to ask what you think our much vaunted Democratic leaders in the Senate and our members of the "Gang of 14" would consider to be "extraordinary circumstances" in a nominee that would justify a filibuster?

I'm trying to look at this practically, not what we would like to happen, but look at the situation through the eyes of the Dem leadership.

In other words, if Bush elevates Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owens, can our members of the "Gang of 14" justifiably filibuster either nominee since they have already said these nominees were not "extraordinary" in elevating them to the appellate courts in the Great Compromise of 2005?

Would Senate Dems filibuster Michael Luttig? He is a rightwing extremist, and I know Harry Reid has spoken out against him recently.

Michael McConnell is also someone to fear. One of his most chilling writings is found here: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002285 titled: Roe v. Wade at 25: Still Illegitimate

Garza and Edith Jones would also radically change the balance of the court.

Edith Clement is the only one who seems semi-reasonable.

Do you think any or all of these nominees are likely to meet filibuster?

Also, can you invision any situation where a filibuster would not meet the nuclear option from the Republicans?

Warner, Graham, and DeWine have all indicated they will leave the Compromise and invoke the nuclear option if we filibuster in a "non-extraordinary circumstance"

Just some issues to discuss...

[papau]

1. Hispanic Gonzales's only "conservative" that should not be filibusterred?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aqKYWOHD9vRM&refer=us

[CityDem]

2. How can we filibuster Brown or Owen

Both were approved as a result of the agreement reached by the gang of 14. When approving these two (along with Pryor), the gang of 14 were stating that these nominees have the qualifications to be circuit court judges and are not extreme circumstances. How can the gang of 14 now say they are not qualified. This agreement to end the filibusters was a bad deal for the dems and we are now seeing the impact. Roberts will surely be approved and we most like see AWOL nominate Owen or Edith Jones for the court and the dems in the senate will just sit on their hands.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

3. One possible out

is that a Circuit Court judge is not as important as a Supreme because they can still be reversed on appeal.

But there ain't no appeal from SCOTUS, so they deserve much more intense scrutiny.

[tritsofme]

4. But who then will win the PR war?

That surely will be one of our arguments.

But the Republicans will say they tried to compromise, but those nasty Dems reneged on their part of the deal, so they were forced to go nuclear.

Maybe even have John McCain out there leading the charge. I think they played us for fools the whole time.

I said back in May that it would hurt the GOP more then than now to go nuclear because they would just look greedy. We should have forced their hand then, now I think they are in a better situation than in May to go nuclear because we have a SCOTUS vacancy, and the situation seems more urgent.

The "deal" was a sham, and they ended up getting the better of us.

[ProudDad]

6. Fuck 'em

We don't need any repuke votes to sustain a fillibuster.

[tritsofme]

7. But we do to defeat the nuclear option

And Warner, Graham, and DeWine have all said they will leave the "Gang of 14" if the Democrat filibuster when it is not an "extraordinary circumstance" aka any filibuster.

McCain has even made some rumblings about bringing back the nuclear option, and for him it would be a great way to regain the good will of the RW and continue to be a media darling by both crafting the compromise, and leaving it when the Dems "reneged" on their part of the deal.

I wish it was just as easy as "fuck em"

[papau]

8. If other than Gonzales (gag) - there is nothing to lose going nuclear

If the want to destroy Roe v Wade that badly, then force them to go nuclear.

Our base will not accept anything less.

Indeed, I leave the party if the response is less - and I am not as "left" as most at DU.

[tritsofme]

9. So from our 7 in the Gang of 14

Which three do you think would be most likely to break ranks and vote to sustain a filibuster of a Brown or Owen type nominee?

[papau]

10. They'll be sustaining a filibuster - or they will be no longer Democrats

Roe v Wade is rock solid core - base belief

not pro-abortion, almost all are anti-abortion

but pro-choice and

pro-women's rights

And they can chase the "middle" all they want, but they will not get elected dog catcher if they shit on the base by ignoring the threat to Roe v Wade.

[tritsofme]

11. They should have forced the nuclear option earlier

Because now it will hurt them less politically to do it.

Once again Republicans were playing chess, while our 7 Great Compromisers were playing checkers.

[ProudDad]

5. There's a BIG difference

between a circuit court seat and the Supreme Court.

There is ample precident for a higher standard for SCOTUS.