by hilzoy
According to Merriam-Webster, ‘conservatism’ means:
1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
This is a view I can respect, even when I disagree with it. Changing institutions can often have large unintended consequences, and a generally cautious attitude towards changing them often makes sense to me. To quote a passage from Chesterton that Sebastian cited recently:
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
So why aren’t more Republicans taking a conservative position on the nuclear option?
The various rules securing a voice for the minority party in judicial appointments are “gates” of the kind Chesterton refers to. Most of them have been done away with in the last two years. In some cases, like blue slips, I do not regret their passing. But I think it was wrong to override Rule IV of the Judiciary Committee, which holds that no nominee may be reported out of committee without at least one minority vote, since this rule requires the majority party to find candidates who are acceptable to at least one member of the minority. And it is wrong, as I have argued, to talk about the unprecedented nature of the Democrats’ filibusters without taking into account the fact that every other means of blocking judicial nominees has been stripped away in the past few years.
The filibuster is a larger gate, one that I would think any conservative would hesitate before removing. It has been used to prop up injustice, and to delay necessary reform. But it has also served as a brake on temporarily popular measures that came to seem, with time, to be misguided. I would support reforming the filibuster. I would certainly support requiring Senators to actually go on speaking as long as needed in order to filibuster. With respect to legislation, I think it would be worth considering some provision whereby legislation introduced in successive sessions of Congress required smaller numbers of votes each time they were reintroduced, until eventually they could be passed by a bare majority. This would make it less likely that legislation whose support was fleeting, but to which a large minority was vehemently opposed, would be passed; while precluding a minority’s using the filibuster year after year to obstruct legislation with lasting majority support. (Note: Mark Schmitt has a very interesting piece, “What I Learned About Filibusters From Writing One”, on the indirect effects that filibusters can have. Worth reading.)
The case for a filibuster seems to me strongest in the case of judicial nominees. They are appointed for life. They have a lot of power. (Sebastian may say that they should not use that power, and I would agree with him, but they surely have it.) They should be thoughtful people, the sort who would attract support across party lines. (And since most of Bush’s nominees have passed, in many cases with considerable Democratic support, I do not accept the claim that it would be impossible to find such nominees at present.) In any case, however, I would have thought that changing the rules to eliminate the possibility of a filibuster would be just the sort of ‘reform’ conservatives would regard with skepticism.
On all of these points, however, I can see how a conservative might end up advocating a change. What I cannot understand, however, is how any genuine conservative could support making this change by breaking the Senate rules. Again, here is what the majority proposes to do:
Either: the Democrats will filibuster; the Republicans will challenge the cloture rule (the one that says you need 60 votes to close discussion) as unconstitutional; the Vice President, in his capacity as President of the Senate, will rule that it is unconstitutional, the Democrats will appeal, the Republicans will move to table the appeal, and if they can get the 51 votes that a motion to table requires, the appeal will be set aside and the rule will be declared unconstitutional;
Or: A similar process will ensue, but the claim about the unconstitutionality of the cloture rule will be replaced by the claim that each session of the Senate is entitled to adopt its own rules by majority vote. Then the Vice President will uphold this claim, the Democrats will appeal, the Republicans will move to table the appeal, and if they have the requisite 51 votes, they will prevail.
Either of these options will involve the following things, all of which are both bad in their own right and, I would have thought, especially odious to conservatives:
* The rules of the Senate, and in particular its rules about how those rules are to be changed, will be simply set aside. The rules specifically state that they continue in effect from one session of the Senate to the next, that they can be changed only in accordance with the procedures they provide, and that debate on a motion to change them can be closed only by a vote of two thirds of the Senators. If the Republicans go for the nuclear option, they will be completely disregarding these rules. For more information on exactly how many rules and precedents they will need to ignore, see The Next Hurrah’s series of ‘Notes on the Nuclear Option’, here.
* The Vice President will have to declare himself on a constitutional question which will alter the ways in which the Senate does business; and his ruling is likely to be exempt from judicial review. This, to my mind, raises serious questions about the separation of powers.
* Moreover, the Vice President will make his ruling not on the basis of his considered views about the Constitution, but to gain a partisan victory. The Vice President seemed to think filibusters were fine back in 1991:
“Faced with a close vote, Senate Republicans intimated that they would launch a filibuster rather than lose a vote in the whole Senate. Quizzed on the subject on the MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour, Cheney made it clear that he had no problem with a filibuster, saying that it would be better to have no vote at all than have a defeat.”
Possibly his views have changed since then. On the other hand, since Cheney is an intelligent man, and since the case that the Senate’s cloture rule is unconstitutional is virtually nonexistent, perhaps not. In which case, he is treating the Constitution, his oath to support it, the general requirement that this country function under it, and his honor, as trifles that can be swept aside when they stand in the way of some aim that he and his party want to achieve.
* Finally, the Senate will have to vote to uphold Cheney’s ruling. Many of the Senators who have announced their intention to vote for the nuclear option have previously stated that they do not believe that filibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional, or have said things that would make no sense unless they thought so. To cite two:
- On May 18, when Bill Frist was asked about his own participation in an attempt to filibuster a judicial nominee, he said: “The issue is not cloture votes per se, it’s the partisan, leadership-led use of cloture votes to kill – to defeat – to assassinate these nominees. That’s the difference. Cloture has been used in the past on this floor to postpone, to get more info, to ask further questions.” If Frist believes that requiring 60 votes for cloture on judicial appointments is unconstitutional, then he must believe it’s unconstitutional all the time, not just when it’s partisan. Conversely, if, according to Frist, the problem with these filibusters is that they are partisan, then he cannot believe that they are unconstitutional.
- Rick Santorum, shortly before he compared Democrats to Nazis, said this: “Those in 2003 had the right to filibuster judges. I had the right, during the Clinton administration, to filibuster his appointments.” His point is that, showing restraint, he did not do so. But if he actually believes that the cloture rule is unconstitutional, then he cannot believe that he or anyone else had such a right.
As before, the Senators who vote on whether to uphold the Vice President’s rulings on the Constitution will not be voting for or against some legislative proposal. They will be voting about what the Constitution says, and what the rules of the Senate are. And they will be voting to uphold interpretations of these rules and that Constitution, which they have vowed to support, in ways that many of them simply do not believe are accurate. To quote Josh Marshall:
“Their reasoning will be that the federal constitution requires that the president makes such nominations “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate” and that that means an up or down vote by the full senate.
Nobody believes that.
Not Dick Cheney, not any member of the Republican Senate caucus.
For that to be true stands not only the simple logic of the constitution, but two hundred years of our constitutional history, on its head. You don’t even need to go into the fact that other judicial nominations have been filibustered, or that many others have been prevented from coming to a vote by invocation of various other senate rules, both formal and informal, or that almost countless numbers of presidential nominees of all kinds have simply never made it out of committee. Indeed, the whole senate committee system probably cannot withstand this novel and outlandish interpretation of the constitution, since one of its main functions is to review presidential appointees before passing them on to the full senate.
Quite simply, the senate is empowered by the constitution to enact its own rules.
You can think the filibuster is a terrible idea. And you may think that it should be abolished, as indeed it can be through the rules of the senate. And there are decent arguments to made on that count. But to assert that it is unconstitutional because each judge does not get an up or down vote by the entire senate you have to hold that the United States senate has been in more or less constant violation of the constitution for more than two centuries.
For all the chaos and storm caused by this debate, and all that is likely to follow it, don’t forget that the all of this will be done by fifty Republican senators quite knowingly invoking a demonstrably false claim of constitutionality to achieve something they couldn’t manage by following the rules.
This is about power; and, to them, the rules quite simply mean nothing.”
I do not understand why people who regard themselves as conservative can look at this pure power grab, in which the Republican majority tries not just to remove a tradition of long standing, but to toss aside the rules of the Senate, willfully misinterpret the Constitution, vote that that interpretation is correct when they do not believe it, and thereby show that their word and their honor mean nothing, and not be appalled. If conservatism means anything good, it means respecting existing institutions, not trashing them; playing by the rules, not breaking them as soon as you can get away with it; and sticking to ideas like honor and respect when they are neither popular nor profitable. What the Republican majority is about to try to do is not conservative in any sense I recognize. It’s just wrong.
Still, this might be understandable if the stakes were high enough: if, for instance, it were the only way to eliminate slavery. But for Priscilla Owen (pdf), who just received the worst ratings (pdf) given by the Houston Bar Association to any member of the Supreme Court of Texas? (She did particularly badly in two categories: “Opinions demonstrate well reasoned, clearly-written disposition of the case based on proper application of the law to the record?”, and “Is impartial and open-minded with respect to determining the legal issues?”) I can’t imagine in what possible world appointing her to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals could be worth this amount of damage, or why conservatives, of all people, should be willing to inflict it.
Excellent post. I’ve been becoming more and more conservative in recent years, yet more and more committed to voting against Republicans. The party is not conservative in any meaningful sense. Breaking the filibuster is a terrible precedent, one which will come back to haunt the GOP.
I fear that we’ll have to go quite far down the path of power at any cost before the consequences become so severe that reasonable checks and balances are restored.
Why haven’t Republicans been more conservative on the nuclear option?
Because, if it has not become obvious, Republicans are not necessarily conservatives.
Excellent post as always. To repeat something I’ve said before by way of amplifying what you said above:
I would support reforming the filibuster. I would certainly support requiring Senators to actually go on speaking as long as needed in order to filibuster.
I whole-heartedly agree. To my view, the filibuster is a trade-off: the Senators engaged in the filibuster deliberately set themselves up to look foolish — whether by explicitly reading the phone book or opening themselves up to split-screen (as per one of Sebastian’s asides) or whatever — and gain in recompense the ability to halt, and possibly even kill, legislation they feel strongly about.
It’s the public nature of the filibuster, though, that is the trade-off. If they make themselves look too stupid (or, in general, snarl government up too much) relative the importance their constituents place on the issue, this will hurt them at the ballot box in the next election. Conversely, if their constituents are glad that the legislation* was stopped, their forgiveness will again be shown at the ballot box. The essential nature of this balance is that it must be public and made commonly available to the constituents who will vote for or against the Senators in question.
Phrased like that, yes, the filibuster can still be used to prop up injustice and delay necessary reform… but if the Senatorial representatives of 41% of the population of the United States** are willing to humiliate themselves in such a fashion in order to stop the legislation from passing, it strongly suggests that that changes need to be made in order to make it more acceptable to the American people.
It’s not majoritarian. It is, in fact, explicitly anti-majoritarian. Then again, so is the Senate; and I see the filibuster merely as part of that function of that branch of government.
[As an aside, I also support dropping nomination filibusters from now on in return for flat-out requiring 60 votes for all lifetime appointments. It’s quicker, cleaner and (I think) will both prevent a lot of these red-meat nominations and ensure a greater level of comity in the Senate, as well as the more obvious perk of guaranteeing that lifetime appointments will be more palatable to the American people as a whole.]
* Begging the question somewhat, I’m going use the word “legislation” as a proxy for “business of the Senate, including legislation, nominations and the like.” I’ll be happy to address the distinction — or, more accurately, why I don’t see a distinction in this context — downthread.
** Yes, yes, I know. Just grant me the rhetorical license here, ok?
If conservatism means anything good, it means respecting existing institutions, not trashing them; playing by the rules, not breaking them as soon as you can get away with it; and sticking to ideas like honor and respect when they are neither popular nor profitable.
Elegant, hilzoy. Another remarkable post but, sadly, not likely to persuade… remember, you’re dealing with neocons, not with Conservatives.
If conservatism means anything good, it means respecting existing institutions, not trashing them; playing by the rules, not breaking them as soon as you can get away with it; and sticking to ideas like honor and respect when they are neither popular nor profitable.
Elegant, hilzoy. Another remarkable post but, sadly, not likely to persuade… remember, you’re dealing with neocons, not with Conservatives.
Of course, Democrats have brought this on themselves. Having packed the court with ideologues at every opportunity, (spineless Republicans also to blame), they now want to complain about “conservative” judges, which we all know is a code word for those who don’t support the unfettered right to abortion. The most conservative of judges sought to be appointed would, at most, return the issue of abortion to state legislatures (along with many other issues that properly belong there). A filibuster by Dems, if played right by the Reps (no guarantee), would earn the Reps back some of the capital they wasted on stupid things like the bankruptcy reform and inaction on immigration. Maybe that is the plan.
As for the Houston Bar Association ratings, that group is so political, I would not take their “ratings” too seriously (many probably did not know who Owens is). I say this as a dues paying member of said group. And look at some of the questions – impartial and open minded when determining the legal issues? Please, what judge at that level is? They are not supposed to be open-minded – they are supposed to know and follow the law. You could hardly call ANY of our current SCOTUS justices open minded (uninformed, mentally deranged, flat-out stupid, maybe – but certainly not open-minded or impartial).
I know that this (excellent) essay requires you to be coy about whether Republicans or conservative or not, but let’s cut to that chase: they aren’t, at least in an way that matters at this point. The party out of power, it seems to me, inevitably becomes the conservative party, while the party in power inevitably becomes the activist party.
Danger Will Robinson! hilzoy is a corrupting influence: look what she has done to John Cole ;^)
Having packed the court with ideologues at every opportunity, (spineless Republicans also to blame), they now want to complain about “conservative” judges…
FTR, Dwight Meredith has crunched the numbers — I’ll see if I can scrounge up a link — showing that Republicans have actually nominated more judges to the SCOTUS, the Appellate Courts and the Circuit Courts than the Democrats, at least amongst those still serving. [I believe that figure includes GWB’s 190+ nominations, which once again seems to have slipped from memory.] This isn’t conclusive proof one way or the other, but it strongly argues against the notion that The Democrats “ideologue-packing” (even assuming arguendo the truth of that statement) was particularly meaningful.
“I can’t imagine in what possible world appointing her to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals could be worth this amount of damage”
Well, if I am not mistaken, Rogers Brown on the 9th circuit, ruling on regulative matters, could be worth billions, tens of billions of dollars to business and industry. Owen on the 5th circuit might possibly encounter oil industry cases, eg EPA vs off-shore drilling.
Cheney rules.
Other than simple corruption, the level of determination and fearlessness involved in resubmitting these nominations and refusing to lose, no matter the cost, I do believe has a real effect on those who would oppose, or support weakly, this leadership.
I know they scare the hell out of me.
praktike: I think some Republicans are conservative, and some aren’t. Things seem to take time to sink in — I suspect that we are now over the idea that the GOP is the party of fiscal conservatism, but we are now at least 13 years past the point when that stopped being true. For myself, I think that during the 90s, the radical wing of the Republican party gradually gained complete dominance over its conservative wing, and to me, the Democrats seem to be obviously more conservative, in the original ‘cautious’ sense, than the Republicans.
Two points: Santorum was first elected to the Senate in 1994, being sworn into office to the 104th Congress, in which the Majority was led by the Republicans, and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole. Unsurprisingly, yes, he never had to filibuster against his own party. How restrained!. Lie, lie, lie. Anyone here who claims it hereafter is lying.
Two: “…to talk about the unprecedented nature of the Democrats’ filibusters without taking into account the fact that every other means of blocking judicial nominees has been stripped away in the past few years.”
Or the fact that it’s a straight lie to claim that Republicans weren’t filibustering judicial nominees. This claim shouldn’t be accepted, but must be refuted
Oops, didn’t finish that thought: I just don’t know when the fact of their radicalism will become clear to most people. I think that we may now be in the period corresponding to the Democrats’ 1968.
No italics!
Italics begone.
Breaking news: Senate sources tell AP there is a deal to avert showdown on judges. –. No idea yet what that deal will be (beyond the obvious).
Oops.
Owen on the 5th circuit might possibly encounter oil industry cases, eg EPA vs off-shore drilling.
Wampum has a post up querying Owen’s ties to Eli Lilly. No clue about the subtance behind the charges, though; this is way beyond my ken. Anyone with expertise want to comment?
CNN is showing the press conference. Susan Collins was up a few moments ago; Lindsey Graham is on right now.
Pryor, Owen and Rogers Brown appear to be getting cloture here. No word yet on the others.
AP story says Owens but nothing on Brown. McCain seems to have outgunned Frist.
“…remember, you’re dealing with neocons, not with Conservatives.”
This is difficult to sustain. People like Santorum, Frist, Lott, and onwards, aren’t neo-conservatives in any remotely meaningful use of the word. This is epithetic to no point. It’s reducing “neo-conservative” simply to being interchangeable with “bad.” Here’s a list of Senators; I’m not sure a single one could sensibly be called a “neo-con.” If so, who?
“Of course, Democrats have brought this on themselves. Having packed the court with ideologues at every opportunity….”
Apparently by hynotic control over Republican Presidents, since it’s an irrefutable fact that the overwhelming majority of U.S. Federal judges were appointed by them. Damn Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush for their fanatic liberalism!
Hell, hilzoy, maybe you hit on something important in your 7:49 post. Perhaps for their 2008 “go-forward” political re-positioning Democrats should start referring to themselves as conservatives and Rs as radicals.
On the judicial numbers, here’s Dwight Meredith’s post from last year. He’s broken it down further elsewhere; still digging.
praktike: I got my info from the CNN Senate correspondent. He was incredibly unclear about what, exactly, the compromise was going to entail; I suspect this story’s gonna morph multiple times before it settles.
14 senators (7+7) at the press conference with McCain, but no details as of yet.
Maybe these guys can now break off and start a centrist party that I can vote for; I’m sick of these other folks.
“The most conservative of judges sought to be appointed would, at most, return the issue of abortion to state legislatures (along with many other issues that properly belong there).”
Like Priscilla Owen ruled on parental notification of abortion, going against the legistative language to the point of being so blatant that wacko liberal Attorney-General Alberto Gonzalez called it a “”an unconscionable act of judicial activism”? First what we need to do is get out of office any President who would nominate such a crazy Attorney-General, and all the liberal Senators who voted for him, right?
The liberal conspiracy is more sweeping and insidious than you realize!
Let me the first to make a very tasteless joke, and then probably get banned: This compromise is worse than Yalta.
Aha! Found the source for all these numbers: the Alliance for Justice judicial database. I’m assuming that the data there are all solid regardless of whatever politics the AFJ might have; anyway, I’m sure there are other databases out there.
Incidentally: it’s now confirmed that Brown, Pryor and Owen are getting cloture and hence up-or-down votes, as thus spake Frist on the Senate floor. Harry Reid was slick but impressive (in that pompous “I’m speaking for the American people way” that I detest but which most people seem to lap up) in his speech. Frist was, well, blatantly hypocritical about the delay — as if Paez had never existed or something — but hey, it’s his right and due. I’m still trying to figure out what the heck the Dems got out of this deal, though; I think we’re not going to find out until the votes go down on the three who were let through.
[Incidentally, Reid has maintained the line on the filibuster for the other nominees, Saad (?) in particular. We’ll see how that pans out.]
Thanks for the link to Meredith, Anarch, but he gets one thing wrong here: “Conservatives have been complaining for half a century that liberal, activist judges on the Federal bench are laying waste to the values that conservatives hold dear.”
No, they’ve been doing it since 1937, actually, to be specific. It didn’t magically start happening in the middle of Eisenhower’s term. (Perhaps I’m being too literal again.)
Gary Farber – re: neocons. I don’t use neocon interchangeably with “bad” as you suggest. I do, however, use it (more loosely than may be spot-on accurate) to generalize those who appear to march pretty much in lock-step with GWB. Frist, Lott and Santorum certainly qualify on that score.
Gary Farber – re: neocons. I don’t use neocon interchangeably with “bad” as you suggest. I do, however, use it (more loosely than may be spot-on accurate) to generalize those who appear to march pretty much in lock-step with GWB. Frist, Lott and Santorum certainly qualify on that score.
whither Brown? She’s the one I’m most concerned about.
whither Brown? She’s the one I’m most concerned about.
Like I said: up-or-down on Pryor, Brown and Owen. The Corner (specifically K-Lo) claims to have the actual text of the deal here.
So a quick stroll around the blogosphere confirms what I was expecting: the die-hards on both sides are pissed off, the moderates and centrists are trying to figure out wtf just happened. As am I. Any ideas?
No, they’ve been doing it since 1937, actually, to be specific. It didn’t magically start happening in the middle of Eisenhower’s term. (Perhaps I’m being too literal again.)
Do you see a continuity in claims of “liberal, activist judges” as far as 1937? My understanding was that most of those complaints had ceased in the 1940s, only to be revived anew by Brown v. Board (which is presumably what Dwight was referring to).
“I do, however, use it (more loosely than may be spot-on accurate) to generalize those who appear to march pretty much in lock-step with GWB.”
I apologize for being blunt, but as I said: reductive to the point of meaninglessness. What the heck, let’s forget political “theory.” It’s too boring. Let’s forget any difference between paleocons, cons, and neocons. Let’s forget Shachtman, Strauss, and Trotsky. Let’s forget letting words have meaning. If you support George W. Bush, you’re a “neocon.” And if you support a Democrat, you’re a “commie.” (Note: this may not be fully “spot-on accurate,” but let’s say it anyway.)
That helps us think better. And political discourse is uplifted and clearer for all.
I think the Senate moderates are seeing this as a way to shift power back to them. That’s what I see this self-congratultion is all about (Schumer, Warner, Durbin on CSPAN right now). It’s basically a big FU to the groups and to the WH.
How about theocons?
How about theocons?
“Do you see a continuity in claims of ‘liberal, activist judges’ as far as 1937?
Abso-frigging-lutely. Though I’ll back down a bit.
“My understanding was that most of those complaints had ceased in the 1940s, only to be revived anew by Brown v. Board (which is presumably what Dwight was referring to).”
I don’t desire to embark on a lecture trip through 1940’s and 1950’s Republicans, but: not to the point I’d start in ’54. They didn’t use much of the present terminology, but they certainly didn’t surrender their complaints about what SCOTUS let FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower do, albeit I grant that the primary focus of hatred was at the Executive Branch. And backing up a bit, I’m not saying it’s completely unreasonable, or anything so strong, as to point to Brown, but the roots are in ’37, I’d say, and neither earlier nor later. But there’s a fair case to argue ’54, fair enough. I just don’t want to see the politics of 1937-54 forgotten. (And it’s not exactly hard to find innumerable conservatives who will agree with me, and point to FDR as the Root Of All Evil, of course.)
Sorry again again again for the double posts. Don’t know what gives. Mac gremlins.
“It’s basically a big FU to the groups and to the WH.”
And what has the WH lost? They’ll sacrifice Bolton to make tho moderates look like something was achieved, but Rogers on the 9th is unacceptable.
And any compromise disappears with a SCOTUS nomination.
I knew Reid was worthless.
Ah, Wayne Allard likes Owen because she, like him, was a veternarian.
god, allard is such a wanker. Still talking about “up or down” bla bla bla bla and lying through his teeth. What a wanker. Wanker wanker wanker.
Myers/Miles (can’t remember names) is the one I loathe. . He says the Endangered Species Act is unconstitutinal. I hate him.
Ah, I’ve found that Janice Rogers Brown agrees with me:
And, incidentally:
Sheer politics and jealousy, of course.
oops, it says nuclear option won’t be used in the 109th Congress. Hmmm.
“god, allard is such a wanker. Still talking about “up or down” bla bla bla bla and lying through his teeth. What a wanker. Wanker wanker wanker.”
Yep. Given this past election’s results in electing Salazar, and Democratic control of both Colorado’s Senate and House, for the first time in my lifetime, though, there’s a fair chance of tossing him next time (although attention is also focused on the Governor’s seat). Don’t look to me for any special insight into Colorado politics, though. See Coloradoluis, or Colorado Politics, as a rule.
And now I go watch 24.
Gary: if you haven’t read the “our own socialist revolution” speech, it’s here.
Also the speech in which she makes this bizarre claim:
“Myers/Miles (can’t remember names) is the one I loathe. .”
The only current Senators with names starting with “M” are Mel Martinez (R-FL), John McCain (R-AZ), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Patty Murray (D-WA). (Equal number of women to men, yay.)
Thanks muchly for the link, Hilzoy. I’ll agree with her on one thing: the French Revolution didn’t work out well.
Also, we probably both drink water.
I just don’t want to see the politics of 1937-54 forgotten.
Sadly, I don’t think I can forget them because I never really learned them. Wasn’t there like a war or something in there?
(And it’s not exactly hard to find innumerable conservatives who will agree with me, and point to FDR as the Root Of All Evil, of course.)
Well yes, but false claims of continuity are nothing new. Just ask the Chinese.
Gary, I assume she’s referring to William Myers, the judicial nominee. It’s not as important what a senator considers unconstitutional, unless we’re talking about the Endangered Species Act influencing the senator’s view of the nuclear option.
praktike: I think the Senate moderates are seeing this as a way to shift power back to them. That’s what I see this self-congratultion is all about (Schumer, Warner, Durbin on CSPAN right now). It’s basically a big FU to the groups and to the WH.
I’m not disputing that but… umm… how is giving those three justices a vote a victory for moderation? This sounds suspiciously like that stupid notion of “centrism” (or, in this case, “independence”) being defined as the midpoint between the two loudest poles, irrespective of where those poles happen to line up.
Kevin Drum says that someone in comments says that one of the three who will get an up or down vote will be “defeated on a bipartisan basis.” Please, please, please let it be Brown…
Though frankly, any of them will do.
BTW? Chris Mathews?
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANKEEEER!
Hmph.
KEEEEEEER!
Sorry, hit post too quick: that someone says that Lindsay Graham has said…
Obviously, what Graham says carries a bit more weight.
Anarch???
“I’m not disputing that but… umm… how is giving those three justices a vote a victory for moderation?”
I have no opinion about this as yet, but my immediate return question would have to be “what was the practical alternative”? If it meant the elimination of the judicial filibuster, including for the expected SCOTUS nominee(s) after the term ends June 27th, would that be a victory?
Armistice is sometimes the only dish on the menu.
Here:
I really didn’t think they’d get a deal, because I didn’t think the Republicans in the moderate group could agree to anything that would allow a filibuster of an SC nomination. I guess there’s enough anger at WH and Frist arrogance on their own side to have gotten to this.
GWB can easily send up a nominee that meets the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ test, and so long as the Republican signatories believe that 4 of the 7 Dem signatories have reached that determination in good faith, the nomination will be blocked.
The question is whether the President will intentionally try to draw a filibuster, so he can blame Dem and Republican moderates. It seems to me that it would be perfectly in character for him to do so.
“I’ve been becoming more and more conservative in recent years, yet more and more committed to voting against Republicans. The party is not conservative in any meaningful sense.”
I like that.
“I guess there’s enough anger at WH and Frist arrogance on their own side to have gotten to this.”
I’m doubtful that’s a primary motivation for at least most; I’m inclined to put it down to more of a combination of sense about maintaining Senate perogatives for the future, the knowledge that lack of a filibuster would, someday, come back to bit them on the ass, and some fear of the unknown in regard to where this was going, as well as some healthy fear of the known consequences. But I could be wrong.
hilzoy: Anarch???
Yeeeees?
Or are you disputing that Chris Mathews is, indeed, a wanker?
Gary: Kevin Drum’s got a link up to, apparently, copies of the actual agreement.
I like page 2, although, of course, what 14 Senators “believe” and “encourage” doesn’t matter very much.
But I welcome anything resembling any show of sanity on this.
“The 14 senators who forged the compromise included…”
Ya know what? I have always liked those Republicans more than that group of Democrats.
If they have sacrificed Brown, promised to defeat her on the floor, that is something. The WH will be stung. I will believe it when I see it. But I am honestly having difficulty saying those particular Republican Senators are not to be trusted.
But they haven’t seen pressure like they will see if a moderate or liberal SCOTUS seat opens up.
And I still would rather have fought and lost than surrendered. I would rather have open warfare than false comity.
Anarch: At first, I couldn’t tell that that was what you were saying, because the one solitary N was way over at the edge of the screen. So it looked like some sort of primal scream in computer form. Was there anything specific that he said?
I’m trying to figure out what I think of this. Plainly the Senate, as an institution, won in a major way, what with not being transformed into the House and all. I hate, hate, hate the idea of any of those three being confirmed, and I also hate what “extreme circumstances” might turn out to allow in. On the other hand, I am really, really glad that this happened, because, like Andrew C., I am a conservative in this sense, and I care about institutions. And I don’t want the Senate to go further down the road to all-out war than it already has.
On reflection, though, I think that a lot of it turns on things I don’t know. I imagine that there were unwritten parts of this agreement. One, presumably, is that at least these 14 Senators know a lot about how the votes on the three who will be let through will turn out, and if in fact one fails, that makes the deal a lot better in my eyes. I would imagine that there might be some sort of clear understanding about presidential consultation; if so, and if I had any faith that the White House would stick to it, that would make it a much better deal as well. Likewise, I imagine they talked through what might count as ‘extreme circumstances’, and a lot would turn on what common understandings they came up with.
Not knowing any of these things, I’m glad for the deal as someone who cares about the institutions of government, and while the words “Janice Rogers Brown, Confirmed’ will stick in my craw forever, I think I can live with it. (There’s also the added bonus that while I’m not sure anyone other than the Senate actually won, Bill Frist clearly lost.) If one of the three loses, and/or there’s a decent understanding about consultation which prevents the White House from nominating anyone truly grotesque, then I’m for it in a full-bodied, as opposed to “well, after all, patriotism comes first, she sighed” sort of way.
“One, presumably, is that at least these 14 Senators know a lot about how the votes on the three who will be let through will turn out….”
This is probably obvious, but those 14 are the vote. It’s a given that all the other Democrats will vote “nay” on cloture and all the other Republicans will vote “aye.” I think. I could be wrong, given my lack of actual seerdom.
“I think. I could be wrong, given my lack of actual seerdom.”
Thinking about it a tad more, I guess I can’t exclude the possibility that they know something about one of their colleagues that I don’t (that’s relevant in terms of how they’d vote on a nominee). It seems rather unlikely, but it’s possible.
Gary: on cloture, yes; but I meant: on the votes on Owen, Brown, and Pryor. The ones that will take place once cloture is secured.
Just for the record, if I ever hear anyone say again that liberals aren’t willing to accept compromise for the good of their country, I reserve the right to scream, “I thought this compromise was OK, even though I had to swallow the idea of Janice Rogers Brown being confirmed!!” at the top of my lungs.
Ah, gotcha.
“I reserve the right to scream….”
Comfort: I’m sure the outraged howls at this “surrender” of the President’s right to get all of his nominees and of the right of no Republican President’s judicial nominee to ever be blocked from a floor vote again, are appearing even now across the blogosphere.
Okay, overall this is a relatively temperate, and probably fairly accurate, analysis, but then we get here:
Like I said. Sometimes I am a seer.
With Bob, I think the word of each of the Rep 14 is good. This is why I think the Dems will be able to filibuster Brown, Estrada, others of similar vein for the S Ct.
I thinking fighting and losing is way overrated.
I’m sure the outraged howls at this “surrender” of the President’s right to get all of his nominees and of the right of no Republican President’s judicial nominee to ever be blocked from a floor vote again, are appearing even now across the blogosphere.
Oh my yes.
[You can find your way to the actual sites if you wish.]
Democrats Blinked
Of course the freepers are howling; they pushed the Democrats three feet over the line they won’t stop now, so close to the cliff.
As I said, if one of the three is defeated in a public floor vote, that will be sufficient insult to the WH to make this almost bearable. But stop listening to spin and watch what actually happens. And what will happen is that two unacceptable, absolutely unacceptable nominess will be confirmed without resistance.
What principle has been successfully defended? The nuke remains viable. And my bottom line, how does this help Democrats win Senate seats? They stand for nothing but themselves.
Oh, yes, this is good. I particularly like this part: “You entered into an agreement with a Klansman, a drunk machine hack and a party bag man. You are the Neville Chamberlain of my generation.”
Plus links to Malkin and Powerline.
They’re this pissed off: it must be a good deal!
I kid about my reasoning. But I’ll take a little schandefreude. Read the whole thing. Oh, and don’t miss where he calls Frist a “hamster.”
You’d be right. Good collection of links here. The Freepers are going nuts, in a sort of “who let these people out of kindergarten?” way (any compromise at all a stab in the back; sold out once again; various references to, well, unpleasant acts popularly thought to involve humiliation, vanishing balls, absent spines, and similar anatomical oddities; never vote Republican again after this, etc.) Powerline says it’s sickening. Etc.
Leafing through this, I thought: I don’t live in the same universe that they live in. In my universe, some people got together to try to act like grownups, cut a deal that will delight no one, and basically did a good thing. It was something we had to do, but it was forced on us by an unprincipled power grab by the majority leadership, and we sacrificed a lot to prevent them from burning the Senate down. In their universe, this was the only way to stop a Democrat power grab in its tracks, and the Republicans have folded again. (I keep asking myself, how do we pull off these power grabs with basically no power whatsoever? One of life’s little mysteries.)
Gary: Good thing you’re kidding, since I think a lot of these guys spend their entire lives being pissed off. So if everything that pissed them off was a good thing, we would truly be living in the best of all possible worlds.
They are; it’s quite delightful. There’s some angst on the liberal blogs, too, but nothing in comparison to the conniption fits on the Right. Let’s cross our fingers and toes and hope that Dobson and his fundie nutters mean what they say about abandoning the GOP.
Last I heard, Frist was still making noises about not accepting the deal. I’m not sure what he can do. He might’ve had the votes to force a simple majority rules change, but I doubt he has the votes to torpedo a done deal. Be interesting if he tries, though.
And it will be interesting to see if that “Moderate Caucus of 14” becomes a new center of gravity in the Senate.
Dobson’s reaction:
I feel better already, although I wish he’d been less complimentary to Frist.
And here’s Josh Marshall, proving once again why he’s one of the best bloggers ever. After going through a lot of the reasons to be dissatisfied:
Something I don’t usually say, but I’m with Kos on this:
Sounds right to me. Naturally, we have our own set of “no surrender! traitors!” folks. I’ll take Richard Russell’s advice on Vietnam, and declare victory and go home.
Gary, I read the CC analysis to which you’d linked. Neither the author nor most of his commenters seem able to read a contract. They seem to think that allowing the three nominations to go to a vote means that ‘extraordinary circumstances’ excludes circumstances just like them. This does not follow at all — the provisions are in separate sections for a reason, and nothing about allowing these three says anything about what an individual Dem senator is going to find extraordinary. Similarly, the commenters (and author) seem to think that a filibuster of Saad and Myers would be a breach — despite the fact that the Dems specifically made no committment regarding these two, and explicitly excluded them from the treatment accorded ‘future’ nominations. The terms of part II do not apply to the nominees in part I.
I forsee bitterness on the right, especially if the Admin sends over an extraordinary nominee, draws a filibuster, and Warner et al don’t back a nuclear strike. Now if Rove is as clever as his detractors say, he’s planned this, and hopes to ride Right wing bitterness to a filibuster-proof majority in the upcoming midterms.
Bainbridge likes the deal, which column does that go in?
Also, having a joke ignored may well be a fate worse than banning.
“Good thing you’re kidding, since I think a lot of these guys spend their entire lives being pissed off. So if everything that pissed them off was a good thing, we would truly be living in the best of all possible worlds.”
Bob, it might be that this is the Battle of the Coral Sea for the Democrats/Republicans (quote for those not up on military history):
(Hey, incidentally, 18 years ago I was editorial assistant on Edwin Hoyt’s book, “Battle of the Coral Sea,” accomplishing such thrilling tasks as putting the pictures in the insert into an order and writing captions, writing endmatter, and lightly line-editing the book and cover matter. :-))
“If conservatism means anything good, it means respecting existing institutions, not trashing them; playing by the rules, not breaking them as soon as you can get away with it; and sticking to ideas like honor and respect when they are neither popular nor profitable.”
The problem with this formulation is it allows liberals to change institutions as much as they want and then invoke precedent whenever they are out of power to prevent changing things back. (General comment, nothing about the filibuster).
Whoops, I was quoting you, Hilzoy, to reply “truly.”
“The problem with this formulation is it allows liberals to change institutions as much as they want and then invoke precedent whenever they are out of power to prevent changing things back.”
And this is different from what Orrin Hatch and the GOP did (with blue slips and other holds) how, exactly?
Repubs:”Give me all your money, or I will burn your house down.”
Reid:”I can’t stop you from burning my house. But how about if I give you half my money.”
Repubs:”Ok”
Reid:”Tricked em. Still got my house and half my money.”
Repubs:”Shucks, suckered by the rabbit again. See ya next week.”
On an utter and complete digression, I’d just like to make clear that I did not write Glenn Reynolds in order to get this link. (On my look at the script and deleted scenes in Revenge of the Sith, not politics.) (I’m pretty sure I can guess the intermediate link that served.)
Star Wars: despite an excessive amount of dumbass attempts to politicize it, still able to bring right and center together!
😉 (Also to say how awful they think the movies are, of course.)
Oh, wait, I’m brainless. I suddenly recall that when I sent out a mass e-mail to a smattering of bloggers, I probably did include Glenn. I can only plead that it was yesterday morning, I just took some brain-deadening medication a while ago, and did I mention I’m brainless? Never mind.
Bob, if it’s true that you can’t stop them burning down your house, getting them to spare it is a victory. Sometimes you have to make the best of a bad situation.
But I doubt we’ve seen the last of the nuclear option, since this deal won’t last long. Any filibuster will give the moderate Republicans an opportunity to claim the Democrats are breaking the agreement because the circumstances are insufficiently extreme. And the stuff in the agreement about having the president consult with Congress is complete fantasy, of course. That said, if we’re going to have a blowup and drive the public perception of Congress further into the ground, I’d rather it be closer to the 2006 election.
Sebastian: if a lot of us conservatives, in my sense, weren’t also liberals, i might agree with you.
Hey, I just thought of another silver lining: that annoying David Brooks column gets to be wrong!
Oooh, those wimpy little moderates, with their quaint sense of fair play. They can’t actually accomplish anything, since as we all know, having moderate political beliefs automatically strips you of any sense of passion or conviction, and enrolls you in the Church of Laodicaea:
Hilzoy, I think in this instance, reluctant as I am to suggest it, you may be being a bit — please note I say a bit, not “entirely” — unfair to Brooks. He didn’t say there was anything wrong with the principle of moderation, and while I’d lean towards thinking he should reverse his criticism from “many” moderates to “some” moderates, it’s still not the same as criticizing “moderates” for being moderates. So saying he was saying there was something “automatic” to criticize about moderates is something I don’t see in the text.
Brooks: “The answer, to be blunt, is that some of the moderates are moderates out of conviction. They do have courage. But many moderates are simply people who feel cross-pressured by different political forces, and their instinctive response is to shrink from pressure. They lack spirit to take risks, to actually lead.”
This is not a claim that moderates are inherently bad.
And Loved the Deal
Mark Schmitt is my guru, and he is ok with the deal, so like unless I was like a total crazed firebrand hater-type, I suppose should just relax and ommanipadmehum into acceptance…..
……….
I’ll take the other 5 mg diazepam & 1/2 ativan and go to bed.
Republicans are right-wingers, pure right-wingers…conservativism stoped with the first Bush.
German conservatives thought their right-wingers were to rabid…but they also thought anything was better than liberals and leftist.
I think ultimately the compromise is the result of Generational (in a Strauss and Howe sense) dynamics. This deal may be the last gasp of the Silent generation (it being no accident that the leaders were people like McCain and Warner, Byrd and Inouye) agreeing to a deal which “solves” today’s problems without resolving the bigger conflict. It may be all they can agree on, it may set the stage for the fighting to begin again shortly (I’d love to be a fly on the wall at the organization meeting for the next Congress in 2007), it may cause the parties to the deal themselves to be vilified, but it appeals to their sense of fair play and preserving the existing order.
Just as (choosing a [hopefully] more critical deal from a similar stage in the past) the Compromise of 1850 was.
whoops — link busted. It should be:
link
Sebastian: The problem with this formulation is it allows liberals to change institutions as much as they want and then invoke precedent whenever they are out of power to prevent changing things back.
Isn’t that exactly what happened when the American Pledge of Allegiance was changed? In 1954, a 62-year-old institution was altered to make a temporary political point by a Republican president. Since then, as far as I’m aware, right-wingers have fought to retain it on the grounds of tradition…
In other news, I see that the tactic of threatening to abolish the filibuster has won the Bush administration three activist judges. I assume this tactic will continue to be used.
Assuming you meant this in seriousness, Gary, I urge you to read this dissection of that notion. Key points:
By the way, Byrd is actually a GI, the generation before the Silents. The 14 signers are generally younger and more generationally diverse than I thought:
Democrats
Robert Byrd (West Virginia) b.1917
Daniel Inouye (Hawaii) b.1924
Mary Landrieu (Louisiana) b.1956
Joseph Lieberman (Connecticut) b.1941
Ben Nelson (Nebraska) b.1941
Mark Pryor (Arkansas) b.1963
Ken Salazar (Colorado)b.1955
Republicans
Lincoln Chafee (Rhode Island) b.1953
Susan Collins (Maine) b.1952
Mike DeWine (Ohio) b.1947
Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) b.1955
John McCain (Arizona) b.1936
John Warner (Virginia) b.1927
Olympia Snowe (Maine) b.1947
Only Inouye, Lieberman, Nelson, McCain and Warner are Silents. The 14 even includes an X’er (Pryor).
It is conservative to remove an anti-conservative practice, a practice never before done in American history for circuit court nominees. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Republicans weren’t engaging in a nuclear option, but a nuclear response.
Charles, I’m not all that motivated or concerned by matters of precedent in the Senate. And given that the rules don’t forbid this “anti-conservative practice”, I’d say that, conservatively speaking, you don’t have a rhetorical leg to stand on. Which, I’d add, is alarmingly anti-conservative of you. There are other responses to the filibuster than pretending the rules don’t exist. I don’t think the Republican leadership has done a good job of exploring various alternatives to what amounts to cheating.
Posted by: Gary Farber :
“They’re this pissed off: it must be a good deal!
I kid about my reasoning. But I’ll take a little schandefreude. Read the whole thing. Oh, and don’t miss where he calls Frist a “hamster.” ”
Gary, the right was highly pissed off that 10 out of 206 (?) nominees weren’t confirmed; they were enraged that the Democratic Senators would dare to obstruct *any* of the GOP president’s nominees, and they didn’t care one bit that 60-odd of Clinton’s nominees were back-stabbed.
Their standard for being pissed off is anything less than 100% success.
When you’re enemy is enraged that he’s only beating you soundly, and not trashing you twice as bad, that doesn’t mean that you’re winning.
I have always felt the the real issue was the judges themselves. The ones I am familiar with cannot be supported on their merits. Myers, for example, believes that the government does not have the right to regulate the activities of private businesses on public land because, in his opinion, this interferes with their property rights (the profits). He is a former lobbyist.
The efforts to put these judges in office never seems to be based on the argument that the candidate might be a good judge. Instead the arguments are:
1. Revenge. The Democrats supposedly blocked Republican choices so Republicans should get even now and force the acceptance of these candidates.
2. Raw power. The Republicans have a majority so they should be able to do what they want.
3. We have to stop Democratic judicial activists and let’s not talk about the rightwing lunatic fringe activism already displayed by candidates such as Myers.
4. Republicans get to change rules. Democrats aren’t supposed to fight back.
It has been demonstrated ad nauseum that Republican Presidents have gotten the vast majority of judges that they have wanted. These particular judges were blocked because they were beyond the pale, well into the catagory of activist extremists. Revenge for blocked judges years ago, upsetness over left wing activism in the seventies, and the desire to exercise power do not justifiy inflicting us with decades of incompetent, out-of-the-mainstream activist judgements.
Dan, I’ve long been a fan of the Strauss/Howe formulation and thesis. Obviously there are going to be individual variations — one should not expect that Paris Hilton and some anonymous but same-aged 3d generation trailer dweller to have the same world view.
Here, I think one has to look at a couple of interesting cultural factors. Southern boomers may be as implacably ideological as those of other regions, but one would expect to find fewer liberals among them. Just as one would expect many fewer New England conservative boomers. I’m not sufficiently acquainted with Mr. Salazar’s history, but judging solely (and probably unfairly) by his surname, I’d entertain the possibility that he might not be on the same broad 90 year cyclical pattern as Lincoln Chaffee.
Like a bunch of others here, I’d be open to discussing the possibility of judges needing 60 votes in a not-filibusterable vote, the moment the committee system starts working again like it used to. In the absence of that, I’m stuck with this: the Republican leadership is dishonest and power-obsessed, and there is no honest defense of their preferences apart from “I want that outcome at any cost”. Any defense of their actions and justifications requires accepting at least one significant distortion of past or present reality, and usually quite a few more. And I’m trying to live my life as honestly as I can, committing myself to as few demonstrable falsehoods as I can.
And to add to that point, I wonder if it isn’t the case that Sens. Snowe and Collins, as well as Landrieu and Pryor, owe their offices to Silents turned off by their local Boomers.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Republicans weren’t engaging in a nuclear option, but a nuclear response.
No, what they were engaging in was what’s commonly described as “lying their frigging pants off,” namely by professing to be upholding a principle — “all judges deserve an up-or-down vote, and the Constitution mandates it” — which a) they themselves had expressly disavowed as recently as last year, and b) is not written anywhere in the Constitution, and c) they were willing to cheat in order to achieve.
. . . a practice never before done in American history for circuit court nominees . . .
Blah, blah, blah. So what? If it’s not forbidden by the rules, then tough crap. Not ever doing anything simply because it’s never been done before isn’t conservativism, it’s stagnation.
CharleyCarp,
Salazar was (I am pretty sure) born in the US. His brother is also in politics. So I don’t think he should be an exception to Generational theory on those grounds.
I have little surprise that GI’s are for the compromise (although there’s so few left) and that X’ers think there’s far bigger issues facing the country than whether Bush gets 95 or 97% of his judicial nominees confirmed. What surprises me is that half of the signers are Boomers.
And while I will concede the point that a Democrat from a solidly red state or a Republican from a blue one may have felt some pressure to make a deal, that still leaves out DeWine and Graham, both of whom based on their other votes were surprises to me.
By the way, Byrd is actually a GI, the generation before the Silents.
Dantheman
Does GI refer to the generation or to actual service? Inouye was a GI (and was awarded the Medal of Honor after a review during Clinton’s admin), but I don’t think Byrd served in the military. The link you gave looks interesting, but I wanted to ask before rooting around the site.
lj,
Generation. Inouye is actually right on the cusp between the GI and Silent generations.
The site has forums, which are somewhat unfocused. The participants range very widely, but tend Democrat. There is a great deal of paranoia there, as the Generational theory indicates we are rapidly approaching (or possibly already in) a major existential crisis which will re-focus politics for the rest of our lifetimes.
While I have learned quite a bit about Peak Oil (i.e., that we are approaching the point at which the rate of oil being drilled worldwide starts to fall and the large amount of currency flows, I also have seen many silly catfights over political and social matters in my lurkings.
I was Googling about for some explanation of what this “Constitutional option” is, and why it’s supposedly “Constitutional”, and found this. I still have no idea what the Constitution has to do with it, but I do have a better idea of how it’s supposed to work and why, and I have to say that I’m even more confused now than I was two weeks ago, on the point of legality, morality, etc.
C. Boyden Gray was just on the Diane Rehm Show, and he repeatedly stressed the idea that judges who are like the three allowed through under the agreement cannot now be filibustered under the “extreme circumstances” standard. He clearly knows how to read a contract, and can see that the two points are completely separate in the agreement, so he’s knowingly spreading misinformation, but I’m sure this will be the Republican talking point. If this is also the understanding of the Republicans in the group of 14, then either the agreement won’t last long or the Democrats essentially caved completely.
Lily: I would like to add to the four arguments you presented, a fifth:
That, in fact, packing the courts with judges whose personal ideological views are as radical as Myer’s (regulation on public lands violates property rights) or Brown’s (landmark New Deal legislation is Socialist and violates the Constitution) is the surest, activist way, if elections go the wrong way, to make sure these personal ideologies become the ideology and law of the land.
Yes, this Republican Party (may we allow that there is a Republican Party and that generalizations may be made without impugning the views of individuals?) likes the eye-gouging and the vengeance part too, but radically remaking the country and destroying the power of the Federal Government is the point.
Dan, one need not have been born outside the US to be part of a different cycle. As noted, I suspect that some of the Boomer members are in office as representatives of Silent interests. That is, that the least Boomer-like of candidates wins in a face off between Boomers, because Silents dislike Boomers so much.
LJ, it’s the generation name in the scheme. If you haven’t looked yet, it’s a system of looking at generations as a series of 90 year cycles, each with 4 components, going back to the 15th century (in England).
Obviously, Japan would have a completely different rhythm, and I for one would be very interested in your take on that, once you’ve gotten into the scheme.
Just to weigh in, I think the compromise is OK, though it gets a lot better if Brown is defeated in a floor vote. The side effects are important. Frist is eviscerated, and deservedly so; this is a man with no principles whatsoever. Bush is weakened (bet McCain is feeling his oats), the lunatic right suffers a setback, moderate Republicans demonstrate some clout.
Imagine the opposite scenario – a successful vote to kill the filibuster. All those things go the other way.
To those who would have preferred a losing fight to the end, remember poor Mike O’Day:
Here lies the body of Michael O’Day
Who died maintaining his right of way.
His right was clear, his will was strong,
But he’s just as dead as if he’d been wrong.
Thanks DtM and CC, it looks interesting. I’ll start googling around this week to see if any Japanese have taken interest in it.
CharleyCarp,
“As noted, I suspect that some of the Boomer members are in office as representatives of Silent interests. That is, that the least Boomer-like of candidates wins in a face off between Boomers, because Silents dislike Boomers so much.”
I don’t think there’s a specific thing like Silent interests, only personality traits. Please clarify what you mean by that. I especially doubt that Silents would be inclined to assert any such interests (part of being a Reactive Generation).
There are certainly people who do not fit the archetype of their Generation, and therefore may be more appealing to members of another Generation. But I suspect you mean something different than that.
lj,
I don’t recall any Japanese commentators. I know there’s at least one thread on Japan, under the Beyond America folder.
Peace in Our Time
“Salazar was (I am pretty sure) born in the US.”
In Colorado.
“His brother is also in politics.”
John Salazar is in the United States House of Representatives, actually, for the Third Congressional District of Colorado. They’re the only siblings presently in Congress.
Byrd was not a GI, correct:
Enjoyed that article on the “constitutional option,” which is defined as the right/obligation of the Senate to adopt new rules at the beginning of the session, notwithstanding the explicit Senate rule that its rules continue. Thanks, Slart. One notes that this argument has been made a number of times, but never actually put into force. One also notes that the author worked for Sen. Frist, and is this hardly disinterested.
WRT the comments of Mr. Gray, the WaPo had a feature on him today, about how he was engaged by the Admin to get all the nominations through. Inasmuch as he is not a party to (or proponent of) the MOU, one would hardly call his interpretation persuasive.
I like the idea of restoring the rule that at least one member of the minority party should vote for a judicial nominee to get that nominee reported out of committee. I would also support a supermajority requirement for all judicial nominees.
Yes, Frist was like an enforcer who was coming to collect protection (for Dobson?) from Reid, but there are times when you have to swallow a pay something and wait for the opportunity to point out how Frist’s behavior was designed to destroy the value of the Senate and would effectively weaken our Republic. That is something that has to be discussed during the election. Just as Roosevelt backed off after losing on the court packing scheme, so we will probably see more appropriate nominees for the rest of this congressional term. It will then be up to the Democrats to get the electorate to punish Frist’s allies and the fencesitters who didn’t sign the pledge in 2006 for being willing to support Frist’s attempted Senate coup.
“one member of the minority party should vote for a judicial nominee to get that nominee reported out of committee. I would also support a supermajority requirement for all judicial nominees.”
Delusional. This is what we get when we call McCain & Graham “moderates” False hope and placidity.
“so we will probably see more appropriate nominees for the rest of this congressional term.”
You see? This ain’t Bush/Cheney. We might get nominees slightly less crazy than Brown, but they will be very very bad, more conservative than Scalia. freelunch thinks we have won, hilzoy.
The truth is not getting out there. We have a conservative party and a nutzoid party, and as long as you talk “moderates” and “compromise” we will keep moving to the right.
When do we start screaming “Stop!” and keep screaming til we get our country back? Let me know when you reach your limit.
There are certainly people who do not fit the archetype of their Generation, and therefore may be more appealing to members of another Generation. But I suspect you mean something different than that.
Nope, this is pretty much what I had in mind.
Of course the sample sizes are so small when one is talking about senators — I don’t know who ran against the various Boomers among the 14, and so what the choices were really like. But it’s fair to say that ATBE, a Silent is going to prefer a moderate Boomer to a fully actualized frothing-at-the-mouth ideological Boomer, and when presented with a choice like that, depending on the demographic mix, you might see moderates.
CharleyCarp,
Your theory certainly does not apply to my prototype Boomer Senator, Rick Santorum. He ran against Silents both times, beating the quasi-incumbent Harris Wofford (whose picture should be next to the dictionary definition of Silent) in 1994 and Jim Lloyd in 2000 (who was drafted to run for the office as sort of a retirement present from the State Senate). I don’t recall seeing voting breakdowns by age for either election, but I do not recall any reports of such differential voting either time.
I’m getting all messed up with these “GI” and “Silent” Generations nonsense. In the spirit of mathematical harmony and precision, would you mind referring to them as Generations V and W? TIA.
[BTW, anyone who thinks that generation should be called “Silent” has clearly never met my dad…]
Small sample sizes will do that. At the individual level, the model really breaks down — and having been born in the same year as Michael Jackson, I’m not sorry that there are variations.
1994 was a Boomer year. Republican Silents, for whatever reason,* let their Boomer colleagues have their heads. (Except where they didn’t!) In 2000, you’re looking at an incumbent, which changes everything.
* Fear of Dem Boomers is what I think it was for most, although there was a strain of people who voted against the Admin because they thought it was ineffective.
And it still hasn’t, although the threat of it has been used previously, as noted, by someone who’s now currently engaged in vigorously denouncing that sort of thing.
Bernard, an opposite scenario wouldn’t be a successful vote to kill the filibuster — that’s the opposite of an unsuccessful vote to kill the filibuster. If the nuclear option had come to a vote and been voted down, that would have been a big victory for Democrats. What happened is somewhere in the middle, and it’s very unclear where along the line it is, until we see how it works out in practice.
CharleyCarp, I wasn’t suggesting Gray’s interpretation was persuasive, just predicting that it would be all over the media, coming from various Republicans, as a way to say the deal was a Republican victory. Also I was expressing fear that some Republicans in the group of 14 may agree with him (or might later have their arms twisted into agreeing with him), though we have no real way of knowing yet. The other guest on “Diane Rehm” was Tom Mann of Brookings, who was entirely too “balanced” in his statements. I wish Rehm had found someone as supportive of the Democrats as Gray was of the Republicans.
KC, I wasn’t disagreeing with you. And DeWine seems to be back-tracking a bit, exactly as you feared. The real tests will be Brown later this week, and the next nomination to be made. Estrada would be an extraordinary circumstance. Racicot would not.
(Feeling free to apply my own definition . . .)
Perhaps the fact that all the traditional methods of blocking nominations have been abolished by the Republicans counts as a extraordinary circumstance?
Perhaps the fact that all the traditional methods of blocking nominations have been abolished by the Republicans counts as a extraordinary circumstance?
Hah — nice try. Sebastian has already made it perfectly clear, seems to me, that the traditional methods of which you speak are only applicable when used by Republicans.
an opposite scenario wouldn’t be a successful vote to kill the filibuster — that’s the opposite of an unsuccessful vote to kill the filibuster. If the nuclear option had come to a vote and been voted down, that would have been a big victory for Democrats.
Fair point, KC. But let’s step back a minute. We let three, or maybe only two, nominations go, and kill some mysterious number (four?) of others. In addition we retain the right to filibuster nut cases – what else can “extraordinary circumstances” mean, and weaken Frist’s hold on the Senate considerably. We also get a statement from seven Republicans that the President should consult with Democrats on nominees. That’s not meaningless.
Who knows how the filibuster vote would have gone? We can speculate about the Republican participants’ motives, but we can’t conclude anything. They are obviously willing to defy Frist up to a point, but not happy about allowing filibusters. Call it fifty-fifty, though I suspect that the odds were Frist would win. Would you rather flip a coin on the filibuster, essentially giving Bush a totally free hand on the judiciary if you lose, or take this deal?
Bernard, I don’t see where Bush doesn’t have a free hand, for all practical purposes. When the all but the most extreme 1-2% percent of your nominees are confirmed, that’s close enough to a free hand for everybody but the wingnuts.
For the Supreme Court, having a nominee rejected in a bruising Senate battle is totally acceptable, for Bush’s purposes. He’s got to have a dozen candidates lined up, who are all hard-core rightwing whackjobs, with records clean enough to evade press scrutiny.
Via John Cole, an excellent (if very partisan) post by Tacitus in his very-partisan-but-excellent mode.
I’m still unsure how to feel about the compromise. At first I thought much the same as you say, that it was better than taking the gamble, but now I’m more doubtful. It all depends on how it works out in practice in weeks and months to come.
I’m not sure that we’ve killed any nominations, or that we’ve retained the ability to filibuster nut cases. That all depends on what “extraordinary circumstances” means. Some Republicans will say that since the Democrats have let the current nut cases through, future nut cases won’t be extraordinary.
The statement about the president needing to consult does seem meaningless to me. Do you actually think it means anything to the White House?
One thing that’s worrying me now is Graham’s statement “And watch this group of 14 to come out with some deal for Social Security.” I don’t want to see Lieberman and company snatch defeat from the jaws of victory on Social Security “reform”.
Is “trevino” “Tacitus”? Shoot me, I haven’t paid enough attention to know.
We got rolled. As others have pointed out, it’s going to be hard to argue that the nomination of anyone who’s not worse than Owens or Brown violates the deal. So either we vastly overhyped how bad those two were, or we were unlikely to ever see the hypothetical “worse than Owens” nominee anyway. Gawd we suck at politics.
Gary, I find his “I can plum it up as good as Hitch even without having read all of Alec Waugh’s letters or even Evelyn’s” style instantly recognizable – perhaps you would too if he spent more time in the above-mentioned mode.
The statement about the president needing to consult does seem meaningless to me. Do you actually think it means anything to the White House?
No. But it might mean something to the Republican signatories.
KC,
I agree this could work out badly. The answer seems to depend on who Bush nominates next and what these Republicans see as “extraordinary circumstances.” What we know is that they find it in their interest to oppose the hard right that seems to control their party. That in itself I take as a positive sign.
I would love to know which of two scenarios is accurate:
1. Frist had the votes, but lost some to this deal.
2. Frist didn’t have the votes, but some R’s preferred this to a straight vote against the leadership. And maybe some of his votes though this better than losing outright.
I’m inclined to think #1, but I can’t defend that very strongly.
barry,
Again, who knows what Bush will do? If he thinks he has a problem with the moderates he may not name a nut case. Or he may.
From around the blogs, it looks like some of the Republicans from the 14-person caucus might vote against some of the nominees. That they’re forming a core of resistance against filibusters–*and* against some of these nominees, who will, at some point, need the votes of most of the caucus’s Republicans. Without some kind of unwritten agreement for a Republican or two to shift sides on maybe Brown, I don’t really see the incentive for the Dems (besides saving the Senate from itself).
Tacitus’s post is a good one, but, man, some of the commenters! On the one hand, it’s good to see some of the hardcore pro-lifers start to wake up to the fact that they’re being played; on the other…well, it’s always spooky for me to run across a single-issue voter, I guess.
Oh, hell. Did that work?
“Gary, I find his […]style instantly recognizable….”
As I’ve said, I’ve really read very little of Tacitus’s writing.
That RedState thread is really compelling reading. Of course it’s amusing to think of pro-choice voters going to the barricades to put JRB on the DC Circuit — where she can write decisions upholding FERC determinations, questioning FCC determinations, and suchlike. Then again, it’s such a den of judicial activists . . .
As I’ve thought about this through the day, the ball is really in the President’s court. He can easily bring it back to confrontation, or can decide to have the Senate spend its time on his legislative agenda. I personally think that that his debt to voters wrt judges has been paid, and that he can pursue SS reform, immigration changes, whatever else. War with Iran maybe. Or Syria, which seems to be up to something.
That the next Supreme Court nominee is going to be someone who thinks Roe was wrongly decided is obvious, and I think, un-extraordinary. Whether it’s someone who also thinks that Griswold was wrongly decided is another matter. Reading those comments on the RedState link, there’s folks looking for the reversal of M’Cullough v. Maryland and Marbury v. Madison. Nominating someone who agrees with these views would be extraordinary, and probably not worth 51 votes anyway.
No deal ?
rilkefan: No deal ?
It’s not so much Frist’s “reneging” on the deal since he never really signed on to it in the first place, it’s whether the 7 Republican signatories side with the Democrats in maintaining the filibuster. That we don’t know yet, and frankly may not know until it comes down to the wire.
Assuming the report is accurate, however… well, I expected some kind of hardball, particularly aimed at the Republican “defectors”, I just didn’t anticipate it quite this soon. Game on!
rilkefan (redux!): Via John Cole, an excellent (if very partisan) post by Tacitus in his very-partisan-but-excellent mode.
Indeed. Very partisan; very excellent.
In all honesty, that may be the best thing I’ve ever seen Tacitus write, in terms of his getting to the nut of what needs to be said so that the GOP can get its sanity back. What’s funny is that he said a great many of the same things I and others have said to Charles Bird on this issue — notably, One may well quibble about the distinction between a judicial and legislative filibuster, and one may rightly point out that the Democrats under Reid were doing something quite novel. But the former distinction is a fundamentally dishonest one — having crushed the filibuster on judicial nominees, who is so naive as to believe it would remain untouched elsewhere? — and a novel use of a venerable tool does not invalidate that tool. I wonder of Charles finds it more palatable or correct coming from Tacitus than from people he considers to be ideological opponents.
Thanks for the pointer to the Tac post, Rilkefan. Quite fascinating in that Tac suggested (though perhaps he has retracted, I don’t know) that it was necessary to go to the mattresses for Bolton and is taking this tack, while Seb has been convinced (I think) about Bolton’s unsuitability, yet seems to have strongly defended the nuclear option as the only way to move forward towards a less activist judiciary. Of course, if you had told me that I was going to be reading John Cole and being in total and complete agreement, I would have thought you were crazy, but his posts excorciating the ‘Newsweek is the enemy crowd’ have been spot-on. I should add that I’m not suggesting hypocrisy on anyone’s part here, just trying to add up the pieces.
The question I have is whether it is really possible to go back to the way it was. I’m sure all of you history minded folks can bring up examples where naked partisan extremism was ratcheted back (Post Civil War? Aftermath of FDR’s court packing scheme?) but this looks like the inevitable result of political trends to energize the base, and create maximal differences that can be exploited.
“The question I have is whether it is really possible to go back to the way it was. I’m sure all of you history minded folks can bring up examples where naked partisan extremism was ratcheted back (Post Civil War? Aftermath of FDR’s court packing scheme?) but this looks like the inevitable result of political trends to energize the base, and create maximal differences that can be exploited.”
It isn’t possible to ratchet back on judicial nominees so long as we allow the judiciary to make so many important decisions without legislative or Constitutional text input.
After my negative comment about him yesterday, it was only fair to do him justice today.
By the way, lj, I can attest that Cole has been posting like that consistently for at least several months – wish I’d started reading him a year or more ago.
“Of course, if you had told me that I was going to be reading John Cole and being in total and complete agreement, I would have thought you were crazy….”
John has displayed great sense on the Republicans almost ever since the election, when the scales seemed to fall from his eyes, overall, with rapidly accelerating speed. Check out the overwhelming majority of anything he’s written in the past three months. (Since he’s got so much so well, I’ve deliberately restrained myself from mentioning to him that there’s nothing he’s been saying that doesn’t apply equally well to the Republican leadership since 1980, or, at the least, 1994.)
“Senate Majority Leader Frist will file for cloture on President Bush’s nomination of William Myers to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later this week, according to sources on and off Capitol Hill, wasting no time in testing the resolve of 14 Republican and Democratic senators who forced at least a temporary halt to the battle over Democratic filibusters of President Bush’s judicial picks.” …Congressional Daily, via Atrios/Eschaton
Frist is of course crazy to insult McCain and Graham this way. Right? They have given their word. Of course all the Dems think the moderates will stand tall against the nuke. Probably so. But if not, the deal is broke, and Rogers-Brown and Owen will have lifetime appointments and Dems will have nothing.
If the seven, or the 14 go nuclear after the confirmations of Rogers and Owen, laughing and spitting in Democrats faces, I want mass resignations, not from leadership positions, but from the Senate.
rilkefan beat me to it. sorry
Yes, bob, you didn’t need to second me on the suggestion that the Dems abdicate from the senate if they get screwed on national tv, giving them carte blanche to shut down the chamber and hence Bush’s agenda through the next election.
4 in a row, but sorry.
If Frist goes forward on Myers, if I remember the process correctly, Cheney will make his call from the chair to end debate, Dems will appeal, a move will be made to table the appeal, and the the “moderates” step forward.
But Cheney has already made his call, the precedent is established, and the filibuster will be dead. All the “moderates” can do is to stop cloture on the appeal, in other words, keep debate going indefinitely. Get the cots, McCain and Graham can be tested for weeks.
Is this right?
By the way, lj, I can attest that Cole has been posting like that consistently for at least several months – wish I’d started reading him a year or more ago.
John has displayed great sense on the Republicans almost ever since the election, when the scales seemed to fall from his eyes, overall, with rapidly accelerating speed.
Well, that’s two impressive recommendations. I realize this is off the topic of the thread, but I’m curious how you guys found your way over there. slarti gave a bunch of links concerning the Gonzales quote ‘against’ Owen, and after looking at the points made (especially the Ipsum Dixit blog), I started reading the other posts and, well, wasn’t too impressed (I hope this doesn’t offend, just noting), so I’m interested in how you and others expand your reading.
I really don’t think the stop-judicial-activism argument has any validity in this situation. The judge candidates, by their own statements, are prepared to make rulings that will profoundly change things we take for granted as normative–such as post-Depression era social legislation and the right of the government to regulate the use of public lands by private businesses. These judges will be activist, Sebastian. Their expressed opinions show it. I will try to accept your word that you are opposed to activist judges, but it is hard when you so persistantly advocate for beyond-the -bounds-of normal-conservative-activists like Meyers.
SH sez: “It isn’t possible to ratchet back on judicial nominees so long as we allow the judiciary to make so many important decisions without legislative or Constitutional text input.”
haven’t we done this to death?
i thought that the judiciary was making so many important decisions because legislators were deliberately pushing the boundaries of the constitution.
or are there no justiciable limits to the state police power, despite the 5th and 14th amendments?
conservatives have been hungering for a renaissance of the commerce clause. where is the demand for a renaissance of the privileges or immunities clause? (since the p or i clause of the 14th amendment was supposed to create a federal check on state regulatory/police power, i’m not surprised by SH’s reluctance to embrace this aspect of the socalled Lost Constitution.)
Bring on the priviliges and immunities clause. Even it doesn’t get you Roe.
“i thought that the judiciary was making so many important decisions because legislators were deliberately pushing the boundaries of the constitution.”
Is that what you thought? That doesn’t get you Roe. That doesn’t get you the death penalty cases. That doesn’t get you the first amendment banning state constitutional amendments on all topics.
“I’m curious how you guys found your way over there.”
I’ve been reading John since around the time he started blogging, which is shortly after I did. Despite the fact that he’d spent plenty of time frothing at the mouth on points I utterly disagreed with, at times, he’s always been an extremely honest, particularly intellectually honest, guy, and we’ve been friendly all this time. Before this past election, and for a bit afterwards, he expended a lot of breath on silly rants about Andrew Sullivan, pretty much to the point of obsession, but in line with his turn-around at the beginning of this year, he dropped that some months ago, and even apologized to Sullivan.
I read a lot of people I disagree with, but largely only if I find them interesting, and reasonably intellectually honest, unless it’s for the sake of sporadically monitoring the horror, the horror.
And John’s always been an example of someone I liked, even when we were in utter disagreement, and I thought he was simply ranting.
Now I get to enjoy his Rants For Good, Instead Of Evil. (We’ll still disagree on bits and pieces, of course, and I don’t expect him to give up his caught-by-Reagan-at-a-formative-stage idealistic feelings about Reagan-Republicanism any time soon, to be sure.)
Frist is of course crazy to insult McCain and Graham this way. Right? They have given their word. Of course all the Dems think the moderates will stand tall against the nuke. Probably so. But if not, the deal is broke, and Rogers-Brown and Owen will have lifetime appointments and Dems will have nothing.
Frist has no choice but to do this. It’s his only hope. He’s a goner without it. Will the moderates stick to their word? I think they will. But if they don’t, how are we worse off? If they go nuclear now they would have done so before, and we still would have had Brown and Owen.
i hadn’t read Roe in ages and just did. I’d forgetten just how heavily the court relied on SH’s favorite theme: common law. To wit, at the end of the 18th century, fetal life was commonly accepted to begin at quickening.
thus, an originalist interpretation of the liberty right explicitly set forth in the 5th and 14th amendment and (allegedly implicitly) contained within the 1st, 4th and 9th amendments would allow a woman to terminate a pre-viable fetus.
I looked over the 14th amendment at FindLaw as well, where I found a clear support of two values, which are perhaps in conflict here: the right of a citizen to life and to liberty.
Of course, the fact that the 14th amendment explicitly defends the rights of male citizens might go further into the problem…
[This next bit is really intended as an academic aside, not as either legal or political grist.] In my reading into late eighteenth-c thought, I’ve been finding that there was at this time a strange uptick in concern about infanticide. This pops up most famously in Malthus’s Essay, where, for him, the only alternative to celibacy or eocnomic planning is infanticide (although aristocrats, at least, were using sheepskin condoms, the idea of contraception is never raised in the Essay). Adam Smith breaks through his stoicism in The Theory of Moral Sentiments to deplore “infant exposure,” and Wordsworth devotes a large lyrical poem to the theme: “The Thorn.” What gives? Nobody in the early eighteenth-c was writing about such matters, and few in the 19th-c wrote about such matters.
The only possible relevance to the current debate that I can see is that such tropes were circulating, and yet the founders chose not to address them, perhaps implicitly leaving them for another day.
“The question I have is whether it is really possible to go back to the way it was. I’m sure all of you history minded folks can bring up examples where naked partisan extremism was ratcheted back (Post Civil War? Aftermath of FDR’s court packing scheme?) but this looks like the inevitable result of political trends to energize the base, and create maximal differences that can be exploited.”
Generational theory suggests that politics does get unravelled after a successfully resolved Crisis, because the resolution of the Crisis requires a consensus and rallying around the leadership that saw the country through the Crisis. For example, 1950’s post-Crisis politics were generally mild and less politicized than 1920’s pre-Crisis politics.
I blame the Anti-Monitor.
I blame the Anti-Merrimac.
I blame Auntie Em.
Harbinger warned about the Anti-Monitor but I’m pretty sure one of the Supermen can at least destroy his outer shell.
“hadn’t read Roe in ages and just did. I’d forgetten just how heavily the court relied on SH’s favorite theme: common law. To wit, at the end of the 18th century, fetal life was commonly accepted to begin at quickening.”
That wasn’t the national common law. That was the common law of some states. Other states disagreed. It was a state issue….
I blame Auntie Em.
We are definitely not in Kansas.
For those not familiar with the classical literature, more about the Anti-Monitor can be found here
“Harbinger warned about the Anti-Monitor but I’m pretty sure one of the Supermen can at least destroy his outer shell.”
Sebastian wins the doorprize for reference-catching! Congratulations, young man!
The reward is your universe is not destroyed.
Which is why I’d suggested him as a conservative addition to this weblog. John goes around the bend rather easily, but so do some others posting here. I have to say that I find him far more sensible than most other conservative bloggers I know, and he’s reeled in the invective somewhat when it comes to our friends across the aisle. Dodd Harris is another guy who I’ve recommended, but Dodd’s had some major problems with comments and trackback spammers, and so he’s got comments turned off.
And I don’t think John’s so much against the whole Newsweek flap as he is against beating the media about the head and shoulders with the anti-American stick every time they publish articles that truthfully report unfavorable information about our military endeavors. I think that he, too, was a little disgusted with the circling-the-wagons conversation.
to our friends across the aisle
that’s “members of the other faith” to you…
I would *love* to see John Cole added to the list of contributors! I found his blog during the Terri Schiavo mess, and have enjoyed it ever since.
There are a lot of trolls at balloon-juice, so I’d suggest we have our mallets ready to play Whack-A-Troll, as they’d very likely follow him over here.
Note that John is a more prolific poster than anyone here. Perhaps he could do a daily post here, though I don’t know what he’d get out of it. Also note that he’s mostly excorciating the right of late, which would not help our Balance. Perhaps he could do a (semi)-daily “Democrat Stupidity” crosspost here…
The reward is your universe is not destroyed.
Yay! That’s where I keep my stuff!