I accept that the filibuster fight is over. I'm still not sure what that agreement between the "gang of fourteen" means. The Dems agreed to let three nominees go by, and may or may not have agreed to let more go. The Reps agreed not to have an actual vote that would procedurally ban filibusters for judicial nominees at this time, but retain the right to have that same vote at some future point (which, I guess, means anytime they want). So, I'm honestly not sure what changed, except a bunch of Senators pretty much broke their arms patting themselves in the back for finding a solution and being bipartisan and all pally-like.
Except that less than two days later, the Dems put Bolton's vote to be UN Ambassador into a cardboard box at the back of their shoe closet. This is a move very much like the filibuster: you need sixty votes to agree to have a vote on anything of substance in the Senate, and the vote to end debate about Bolton didn't get it. Hence, much like a filibuster, Bolton can't be confirmed (but hasn't been rejected yet, either). Why isn't this fight the same as the filibuster fight?
I think my preference just to have this fight. Let the Reps trigger the "nuclear option" and lets just get this fight over with. I'd rather do it over Bolton or Owens (I know, she already made it through), who are clearly easy to take pot shots at, then wait for a Supreme Court nominee who nobody likes, but isn't as easy to generate the enthusiams for filibustering. Just have the fight now, so everyone knows what the playing field looks like for more important fights in the future.
By the way, is Frist useful for anything besides holding the Senate's coats or parking their cars? He seems awfully useless these days.
Posted by baltar at May 27, 2005 03:57 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Politics