Monday, May 23, 2005

Judicial "Compromise"

I watched on Fox News as 14 "moderate" senators of both parties announced a "compromise" solution to the judicial filibuster issue. The problem was, I could not understand what made it a compromise. A compromise is when both sides give up something in order to gain something they would not have gained otherwise. I have yet to see anything that the Republicans gained.

It seems pretty obvious that the Republicans had the 50 votes needed to change senate rules on judicial filibusters, if the Democrats continued to filibuster the seven nominees they had been filibustering. The "compromise" will allow votes on three of them, and two will be denied a vote. I did not hear what is to become of the other two. In exchange, the Democrats retain the power to filibuster any future judicial nominees they consider "extreme." The problem is, they have considered just about every Bush appointee so far as extreme. Without this "compromise," there would have been an up-or-down vote on all nominees now and in the future.

It reminds me of how our State Department negotiated with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Soviets would grab something that had not been theirs before. The State Department would go in and negotiate a "compromise" in which the Soviets would give back half, in exchange for us giving up something that had always been ours.. This would be proclaimed as a victory.

We were strong enough that we were able to survive those "compromises." Time will tell whether the Republicans are strong enough to survive many "compromises" like this one.


Post a Comment

<< Home