Here's Ralph Neas of People for the American Way on the deal:
Though Aggravating, an Important Defeat for the Far Right
Many of you fought long and hard with us to stop the “nuclear option,” giving your time, energy and financial resources to turn a planned right-wing/White House sneak attack on checks and balances into a publicly embarrassing and unsuccessful quest for single-party rule. I firmly believe that it was only through our combined efforts that the nuclear option was defused and the filibuster preserved for upcoming Supreme Court nominations. This is a real accomplishment.
But I also know that the agreement that prevented the nuclear option from being deployed was far less satisfying than outright victory on the vote would have been. I know it was difficult to see the Senate’s confirmation of Priscilla Owen to the federal appeals court on Wednesday. She doesn’t belong there and she’s probably not the last bad Bush nominee to get on the courts. We all understand that this is a bitter pill for everyone who has fought long and hard against these nominees.
But the deal that gave Owen the vote is still a resounding defeat for the radical right. Let me explain why I am convinced that is the case.
First, Republican leaders, with 55 Senate votes and the White House, had their most urgent desire – a complete end to the filibuster before a Supreme Court fight – denied them. Their base is furious and engaging in rabid infighting. You can find compilations of their ranting and spinning on our website.
Even if Senate Majority Frist tries to bring back the nuclear option during a Supreme Court fight, as he is threatening to do, he will be on much weaker ground – one of the reasons the far right is so angry. The American public, thanks to our efforts and those of our allies, is strongly opposed to getting rid of the filibuster. There will be even more overwhelming opposition to doing away with checks and balances in the context of a Supreme Court nomination. It will be impossible for right-wing leaders to make a credible claim that they are defending “majority rule.”
Not only that, but Americans have now heard a bipartisan group of senators talking about how destructive the nuclear option would be. And many of the “principles” that Senator Frist claimed to be protecting – like the ridiculous claim that the Constitution requires an up-or-down vote on every nominee – have been publicly repudiated.
So has the president’s deliberately confrontational approach to nominating judges. Senators from both parties have insisted that the White House acknowledge that the Constitution makes the Senate the president’s partner in appointing judges. The agreement announced on Monday called on President Bush to speak with senators from both parties to seek consensus nominees for the Supreme Court. That puts the pressure on the White House not to go for broke with another Robert Bork.
If, on the other hand, First’s nuclear power play had been successful, the political momentum and demands of the triumphant far right would all have pushed Bush to go for the most extreme nominee possible. The political environment has been changed for the better.
Keep in mind that “the Democrats” didn’t cut this deal. Neither did Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who has led a passionate campaign to keep the worst Bush judges off the bench. And neither did PFAW or other progressive organizations that have worked so hard to save the Constitution from the power-at-all-costs tactics of the White House and Senate Republican leaders. The compromise was struck by seven Republicans and seven Democrats. And while it has a high cost in terms of seeing some more unfit and dangerous judges on the appeals courts, it may have prevented far worse damage – catastrophic, long-term damage – on the Supreme Court.
Of course, the sting of giving up the filibuster on Owen, Brown and Pryor is real – and our inability to see progressives unequivocally stomp out the “nuclear option” on a floor vote reminds us of the unfavorable balance of power in the Senate. But together we held up the principles of compromise and consensus as a reason to preserve the filibuster, so if we are honest about our goals, then this outcome is a victory. The compromise also underlines the importance of our efforts to reach out effectively to senators of both parties – especially the 14 signers of the agreement – on the principles at stake with judicial nominations.
Sincerely,
Ralph G. Neas
President
No one knows who would have won the vote on the nuclear option if those 14 senators hadn’t brokered their deal. And no one knows for sure just how long this compromise will hold or how it will affect future nominees. But it has undoubtedly weakened the hand of the far-right at a crucial moment in our history.
