Nuclear Option: It's Up To Us to Help Define the Victory

By DHinMI

The presser is still going on, and people on both ends of the political spectrum are calling this a defeat.  But only one side of the political spectrum calling this a defeat is wrong: the left side is wrong.  This is a victory for Harry Reid and the Democratic caucus in the Senate, and it's a big loss for the Republicans, the White House, and especially Bill Frist.

Here's the deal as far as I can tell.  First, what the Democrats gave up: there will be closture votes on William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and Priscilla Owen.  That means there will not be a filibuster on these three nominees, and presumably, with 55 Republicans, they'll all be confirmed to the appelate court.  Harry Reid just confirmed that the Michigan judges will be confirmed (with one exception).  As darlings of the radical religious right, which is perceived to be important, but as I'll explain, doesn't mean diddly. 

What the Republicans gave up are committments to vote for cloture on William Myers and our old friend, Henry Saad.  That means they will be filibustered, and not approved.

What was agreed by all was a committment to only filibuster in "extreme circumstances."

Thus, the Nuclear Option was not launched, and Democrats retain the option to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee.  As Reid just said, "the nuclear option is off the table." 

Remember, the Democratic goal all along was to retain the ability to filibuster judges, and they apparently will sucessfully filibuster Henry Saad and William Myers should their nominations come to the floor.  The Democrats still have what they wanted to protect, and will exercise that ability to keep two extremist judges from taking the bench. 

Harry Reid calls it a success, but Bill Frist, speaking on the floor of the Senate about the desire to permit every nominee an up-or-down vote, said "the agreement announced tonight falls short of that principle, it falls short.  It has some good news, and it has some disappointing news...As of a couple hours ago, maybe none would have gotten an up-or-down vote."  In other words, Frist failed.  Bill Frist tried to play tough, but the Democrats were tougher. 

Now on the people who will be advanced.  No doubt about it, they are awful nominees.  Other than Henry Saad, the Michigan judges aren't as bad as plenty of other nominees who were approved; the issue there was about past nominees during the Clinton administration.  But Brown, Rogers and Owen are awful.  But they won't be enough to mollify the Dobsonites on the radical right.  They wanted the full nuclear option, and nothing less than the maximum is a defeat. 

I'm sure there will be lots more written on this, but for now, one last point.  The Democrats just made seven close friends among the Republicans.  Why?  Because seven Democrats were part of what had been a six-Dem contingent of a Gang of Twelve.  That meant that six Repubs would have been enough to thwart the Republican majority and the White House, so every one of those six would be deemed "the deciding vote." By adding another Republican and another Democrat to match that Republican, none of the Republicans can be considered the deciding vote.  It was a deft move by McCain and Reid, and was probably crucial to the success of putting the Nuclear Option back in the silo.

So remember, this isn't a complete victory.  But considering that the Democrats just managed to perserve the filibuster, block two extremist nominees from being appointed, divide the Republican-led Senate from the White House, and destroy the Presidential aspirations of Bill Frist, it's enough of a victory for me, and it should be enough of a victory for you too.

ADDENDUM
Harry Reid, on the floor of the Senate:  "Of course there will be filibusters in the future; it's the nature of this institution.  And that's the way it should be...Mr. Smith can still come to Washington."

That's a declaration of victory.  And now, by praising Bill Frist, he's damning Frist to the vicious attacks of the right wing. 

Frist's career is done, and he knows it. 

Comments

[ng]

How can any Dem really trust this group of Brutuses (?). When that soon to be nominated, anti-choice, darling of the far right Supreme Court nominee comes along, does anyone really believe the words nuclear options won't be back??

In other words, is a stall now better than a battle now, or will a successful nuclear option be better now or with that SC nominee??

[DemFromCT]

ng, note that we may not have won tomorrow, though we won't know that now.

[DHinMI]

They just rejected the Nuclear Option except in "extreme circumstances." In other words, by the terms agreed to with the Republicans, anyone the Dems filibuster will be, by definition, extreme.

I think they could only bluff once. The filibuster can continued to be used. And the Nuclear Option is off the table. Dems are ALL saying "it's off the table." Putting it back on the table would be a total reneeging on the deal, and in the Senate, with the principals involved, like McCain and Warner and Snowe, you don't fuck people by reneeging on your word.

I've worked in a legislative setting, and there are always people trusted by people across the aisle, regardless of their partisanship, because of their trustworthiness. Warner, Snowe and McCain are in that category.

[RonK, Seattle]

Very frustrated here.

Trying to come up with a series of one-letter changes that will convert
FRIST
to
TOAST

and I'm just not getting there.

Also a bit troubled by an apparent pass for Brown -- the Bolton of the Bench -- but maybe there's more to it.

OK, Owen is a lock. Can we get to Bolton before the others come to a vote? That could give the Mod's extra practice defecting from the caucus, and facing the fact that Bush has the reverse Midas touch.

[Mimikatz]

I think DH is right, and this is VERY significant. Here's why.

What Bush (and Dobson, and by extention, Frist) value above all is blind loyalty. My way all the way. Seven GOP Senators have said "No thanks, that's not how we do things here."

This is VERY, VERY significant. And, as DH says, the Dems have 7 R new best friends that they can call on in extremis. The filibuster is safe, Brown gets her up-and-down vote, though she may not like it.

Not great, but it's the beginning.

[The Heretik]

I totally disagree on who won tonight. The battle was always over whether we would return to the Nineteenth Century. Live blogged til the Kool Aid got too deep. Republicans Win Compromise

[NG]

people trusted by people across the aisle, regardless of their partisanship, because of their trustworthiness. Warner, Snowe and McCain are in that category.

Well, my crystal ball must need a new fuse or something because I just cannot get a good read on this now. I grant you that in the logical consequences world seen by "here and now" human beings, that what you say about mutual trust and one word makes sense. HOWEVER, I do no believe we have ever dealt with the likes of this group of conservative fanatics. They are not in the logical consequences "here and now", and they are not logical.

I just think that fighting the nuclear option battle now would allow better strategy planning ahead even with a lose rather than to have to make it up short term under duress with the SC nominee battle nuclear option if they pull that. BTW, I think they will unless the next elections change the mix and no SC nominee comes along before that--unlikely.

It is a tough call!

[Petey]

"And the Nuclear Option is off the table. Dems are ALL saying "it's off the table." Putting it back on the table would be a total reneeging on the deal,"

If this were true, I wouldn't think the deal was bad.

But my understanding is that all 14 of the Senators involved get to individually determine whether or not a filibuster is extreme or not. If two Republican Senators (say Graham and DeWine) determine a filibuster is extreme, they are free to vote for the nuclear option.

If I'm Karl Rove, I send Owen or Brown up for SCOTUS and laugh.

Bad deal.
No victory to define.
Defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.
Worst possible outcome.
Reid will never hold a better hand than he did right now.
Uggggggghhhhhh.

[DHinMI]

Mimikatz, I've always thought you were one of the shrewedest people on the blogs, but I especially think you're shrewd when you're agreeing with me. ;-)

Seriously, you're dead on, it's HUGE that those seven Repubs just stood up to Bush and their right wing activists. That's just huge, and probably the first time it's happened on anything important in the entire Bush presidency.

[DHinMI]

NG, they're not the conservative fanatics. Snowe's a moderate, Warner is an old-fashioned conservative, and McCain is a mix of the two. What's important is what Mimikatz pointed out: they just stood up to the radical right. They refused to be cowed by the fanatics. This is a huge development.

[DemFromCT]

yeah, it's only NRO, but...

THE DEAL [Jonah Goldberg]

From a reader:

Dear Jonah,

So let me get this straight. The Democrats agree top allow three votes they can't stop in return for the Republicans stopping all the other votes they ( the Democrats) can't stop. The Republicans agree that the Democrats can do this again if they decide conditions constitute an "extraordinary circumstance", and the Republicans agree that until the next election they will allow them to do this witout fear of retribution. This is what passes for moderation and compromise in Washington? What did we gain that we didn't already have? What did we give up in return for nothing? Forget the RINO argument, any Republican that agreed to this deal is just plain stupid and deserves to be defeated for incompetence.

...my quick foray into R Blogistan suggests we coulda done worse.

[DHinMI]

What did we gain that we didn't already have?

Bingo.

The 55 seat majority just acquieseced to the 45 seat minority.

[Mimikatz]

Thanks, DH. Steve Clemons pointed this out last month re: Bolton. It is very important for Bush to be able to reward blind loyalty in order to keep receiving it. That is another reason he has to fight for Bolton.

I just hope Steve is wrong that a pass on Bolton is part of the deal. I think it is time for a long, long debate on this guy on the floow of the Senate.

[ROuze]

Perhaps I'm gullible or too trusting in the rhetoric of the "historic Senate," but I agree with the above posts that Frist/Rove/Dobson are not at all happy about this. The sight of Dick Cheney changing the rules of the Senate by breaking a 50-50 tie would have unleashed a tide of triumphalism that would recall 2003 in not so pleasant ways. The symbolic victory for the White House basically muscling the Senate via the departing Majority Leader would have had scary consequences for SC nominations. Remember, the radical right loves to turn narrow victories into dictatorial steamrolling: 50-50=90-10.

The symbolic statement of this compromise is to at least restore the potential for a true Advisory role for the Senate. Perhaps Graham, McCain, et al will feel a little juice to remind the WH to check in with the Senate in some form before jamming nominees through.

Curious note: where was Specter? They really do have his cojones in a vise over the Judiciary chair.

I consider myself Left to be sure, but I think compromise was the best option. I think Frist had the votes, however slim, and the consequences of that would have been unfortunate, long and short term. As cheesy and overused as it is, "the cooling saucer" image is apt to describe the Senate's vital role in the Republic. Otherwise the Senate would be at the mercy of the Thunes and the Coburns. Yeah many Senators are pompous grandstanders, but its the only branch left to check the Executive, and the pomposity is their animating force.

[Meteor Blades]

I'm always cautious of instant analysis. That said, my own take on this is visceral, so when I heard about the compromise, I was spitting nails.

Extremist that I am, I would have preferred a filibuster on all five of those judges, even though I know the Democrats don't have that kind of clout, and some of the moderates who brokered this deal would probably have abandoned us anyway on several of the nominees. From that perspective - two of five judges blocked - I guess it's a win in the short run.

However, it's in the long run that we'll only see if it's really a win.

[emptywheel]

NG,

I've been saying that myself--better to fight now, while we're all ready for it.

But I'm also seeing this as a battle victory that may yield further battle victories. At the very least, we have changed the makeup of both sides. Don't know whether that will be enough to win the NEXT battle (and hopefully by a larger option). But I do know our leadership just got strengthened, whereas the GOP leader, if you can call him that, will have a great deal less authority tomorrow morning.

[~DS~]

Good post. I'll linky link.

[ng]

I just carefully read the actual compromise agreement, and of the two parts related to the filibuster, the more important one is the agreement not to avoid the normal rules changing mechanism. The part about extraordinary circumstances being needed for a filibuster of SC nominees seems weak by itself because any one of the signers of this agreement could just back out if they thought circumstances were not extraordinary. However if I understand the agreement to mean that the Repubs now agree that changing the rules is the issue, and they will not do this without the required ?2/3 majority, now that is something! Again of course, can they be trusted?

[Petey]

If there really is a secret agreement to vote down Brown on the floor, this all begins to make a bit more sense to me.

[pontificator]

The pressure will be 10 times as hot in the event of a Supreme Court nominee. If one of the R signatories to this agreements attempts to relaunch the nuclear option in that instance, I would expect the rallying cry to be: "You can't trust Senator X to keep his word."

[M31]

frister
foister
moister
hoister
holster
bolster
boaster
toaster

RonK, I couldn't do it without the 'er', though 'frist foist moist hoist heist' is very apt.

[Petey]

"However if I understand the agreement to mean that the Repubs now agree that changing the rules is the issue, and they will not do this without the required 2/3 majority"

The escape clause for Part 2 is this phrase:

"In light of the spirit and continuing commitments..."

DeWine claims that the signatories understood that to mean that if individual GOP Senators felt the Dems were filibustering without true "extraordinary circumstances", then they would be free to break the rules in nuclear fashion.

But more importantly, if the Brown and Owen filibusters are not "extraordinary circumstances", then what is?

[DHinMI]

I think they can be trusted. Graham has been a maverick waiting to happen for a while. Collins needed some bucking up to join Snowe as someone willing to act on at least some of her convictions. And Warner and Byrd showed all these guys how it's supposed to be done. The admiration and respect that McCain and Warner showed Byrd was real: that's the kind of relationship that's supposed to prevail in the Senate.

What I think may be interesting from here on out is the effect this break from the wingers and the White House by these seven Repubs might have on some other people with at least some decency but a lack of courage--people like Lugar. This may not go anywhere. But I think it's huge, because I think it created space for the Senate to act independently of the WH and the wingers.

On a completely different subject, this stuff has so monopolized my attention over the last few hours that I forgot the Pistons were playing. Let's hope they keep their current 8 point lead.

[emptywheel]

Petey,

Don't know whether there is (although apparently Graham was mumbling that not all of them would pass). But if I were a compromise Senator, something like that would sure reinforce the value of an up or down vote AND instill confidence in the larger agreement. And what better way to release some of the pressure the GOP compromise Senators need to be under--the fundies have been arguing that these judges have "bipartisan majority support." They might be a little more humble if they were proven wrong on that one.

[Petey]

"On a completely different subject, this stuff has so monopolized my attention over the last few hours that I forgot the Pistons were playing."

Given the way Shaquille is moving, I'd start worrying about the Spurs if I were you.

[Kagro X]

Well, I'll cross my fingers on that one, Petey. Who cares about the merits? I just want to look smart as all hell.

[DHinMI]

And what better way to release some of the pressure the GOP compromise Senators need to be under--the fundies have been arguing that these judges have "bipartisan majority support." They might be a little more humble if they were proven wrong on that one.

Great point. Maybe Specter shows up and votes against one of them to give DeWine or Graham or one of the other weaker Repubs some cover? Snowe is capable of doing whatever she wants, as is McCain. Maybe Chafee, Snowe, Specter, Collins, McCain and one other Repub votes against one of the nominees? That would be great.

[ng]

The escape clause for Part 2 is this phrase:

"In light of the spirit and continuing commitments..."

DeWine claims that the signatories understood that to mean that if individual GOP Senators felt the Dems were filibustering without true "extraordinary circumstances", then they would be free to break the rules in nuclear fashion.

Hmmmm. Maybe this is the key language that we should be discussing?

I guess I thought this escape clause was just applying to the actual filibuster implementation, but I guess it applys to the agreement on changing the rules by 2/3 as well. If that is so, would not they look hypocritical in saying that the nuclear option was indeed breaking the rules today but not in the future if extraordinary circumstances do not exist in their eyes.

I don't know about this Swiss Cheese agreement??

[Trapper John]

Ugh. I'm with RonK and Petey -- no deal allowing Brown to get through is a good deal for the Dems. Brown is, quite simply, the worst nominee of my lifetime. A DC Circuit judge who believes that 1) the Commerce Clause is a nullity, 2) that the New Deal is fundamentally illegitimate, and 3) that the very creation of the agencies whose decisions she'll be reviewing was unconstitutional -- completely fucking unacceptable.

[Trapper John]

And c'mon -- we're relying on Mike DeWine's interpretation of "extraordinary circumstances?" Face it -- we got hosed. This bullshit deal gives the GOP moderates the cover they need to vote FOR the nuclear option. Which -- mark my words -- they'll do by the '06 midterms. "Extraordinary circumstances" will raise their ugly head the second that the Dems try to filibuster someone other than the MI judges.

After all, what the hell's the point of having the filibuster if we can't use it? We got beat. No point in spinning it.

[DHinMI]

Trapper: they pretty much said they're NOT going to vote for cloture on Saad and Myers. Reid is saying they're going to filibuster. And the Repubs are conceding that there won't be "up-or-down votes" on all the nominees. It's obviously going to take a day or two for the details to start to seep out, but the Dems looked ecstatic, and the Repubs not part of the group of 14 looked demoralized. I think there's something to that, and the reasons haven't become obvious and public. But there's something there that's really bad from the perspective of the Republicans, and the Dems seem please as punch.

[Trapper John]

Right. I'm saying that the first filibuster attempt after Saad/Myers will lead to a successful implementation of the nuclear option.

[ng]

But there's something there that's really bad from the perspective of the Republicans, and the Dems seem please as punch.

I am getting tired so maybe this will be a bit incoherrent. The reason why democracy works or does not work is trust or lack thereof in the system of rules that protects the will and rights of large groups of citizens. Election fraud or arbitrary changing of the rules of checks and balances directly challenges a Democracy. The system can trample minority rights if the minority is relatively small, but if the minority is almost equal to or maybe larger than the majority, which can happen in our poorly designed representative system, then when that very small ? majority breaks checks and balance rules, the country is in real danger of civil unrest. If the Dems are pleased, it is because they think the Repub center has seen this point and agreed to it. The nuclear option under the current political situation was indeed a nuclear option for this country. This episode with these fanatics in control has been BY FAR the biggest threat to this country in my lifetime, and I am 56 years old!

What I am saying is that the Senate was playing with real dynamite with this rule changing power grab issue, IMO, and the Dems best defense is/would be/should be to make the consequences of ruining this denocracy very clear to the fanatics and to the country in general. The Dems don't need to just feel good; they need to show the force of their convictions here to the entire country. The stakes were and still are that high!

[DHinMI]

Right. I'm saying that the first filibuster attempt after Saad/Myers will lead to a successful implementation of the nuclear option.

Oooh, I don't think so at all. Check out DKos, where Markos has Dobson's reaction posted. They're talking about the next election, not next month. And there's no way the 7 repubs just roll over and back out on their committments next month. You may not have seen it, but right after the announcement, Graham was being interviews by CNN, and he said something like "now maybe the White House will start working with the Senate to determine who might be a good judge." This was the Senate doing what most of us long thought was in their self-and-institutional best interest: asserting their independence from the White House (and by extension, the wingers Rove works with).

[Tim Sackton]

FRIST
FOIST
JOIST
JOUST
ROUST
ROAST
TOAST

I personally like the Roast Toast at the end. :-)

I think the important thing to take away from this compromise is that it makes it much, much harder for Republicans to deny the legitimacy of the filibuster. Say Bush nominates an extreme right winger for the Supreme Court, and the Democrats filibuster. Sure, the whole debate could come up again, but now the arguments will be 'is the nominee extreme enough to justify the filibuster', not 'is the filibuster a legitimate use of minority power against judges.' It seems to be that this is exactly what we want: we should be able to make the case that any judge we want to filibuster is extreme. This agreement cuts off at the knees the 'everyone deserves a vote' logic, as far as I can tell, at least as a Republican frame to reach independants.

Plus, on the basis of last week's rhetoric, Reid clearly won and Frist clearly lost: Frist has been insisting on an up or down vote for all nominees, and there is no way that this deal can be spun as that. Reid has been insisting on preserving the right of Democrats to filibuster future nominees, and this deal clearly still allows that. So the immediate aftermath can easily be spun as a Democratic victory, which strengthens the Democratic position for the future and badly hurts Frist's power -- certainly a good thing.

[Trapper John]

Eventually, there will come a time when Mike DeWine and Chuck Hagel conclude that the Dems are filibustering under ordinary circumstances. And then, the nuclear option will pass by 2-5 votes. We're merely postponing the inevitable and enabling moderates to vote with Frist in the future. And I'm no Eeyore.

[Petey]

At the end of the day, Frist and the administration greatly overreached, and their bluff should have been called. Instead, they've been bailed out.

If Reid hadn't blinked, one of two things would've happened. Either folks like Warner, Specter, and Collins would've decided out of self-interest that they didn't want to give up their own power, and they would've signed on to a compromise on Democratic terms. Or Frist would've gotten 50 votes with Cheney implicated in the scheme, and the Dems could've taken the issue to the voters.

Instead we've got the worst of all possible outcomes.

I'd love to know what Reid is thinking. He's delivered peace in our time, but I'm very curious if there is a gameplan I'm not seeing. From what I'm able to see, he has squandered a great position, and has been successfully bluffed.

[Petey]

"And there's no way the 7 repubs just roll over and back out on their committments next month."

As I understand the agreement, and as DeWine indicates that the Group of 14 understand the agreement, the R's are not committed to not go nuclear if they decide the D's are filibustering without extraordinary circumstances.

This is a good deal if you think the D's position will be stronger in a future repetition of the current showdown than it was today. I don't think that, so I think it's a lousy deal.

[RonK, Seattle]

Tim Sackton -- Excellent! How did I miss that? Looking at my sheet I see I had all the parts but didn't connect the dots.

Must have been a bit distracted ;-)

[Meteor Blades]

Thanks, Trapper, RonK and Petey for confirming with some details what's been my feeling intuitively.

[Crab Nebula]

Great job, you guys. I've been totally out of the news for 7 days and all I have to do is read this thread and nothing else.

[RonK, Seattle]

MB -- I'm reserving judgment. A lot of things happened today, for a lot of reasons. Few of them were visible, and the sequels are ambiguous by design.

[DHinMI]

According to jsmdlwayer over at DKos, Graham was on MSNBC this evening and said one of the three would be voted down in a bi-partisan vote. If true, that's even more a hit to the Repubs, becuase it puts the lie to the idea that the filibuster was blocking the inevatable support, posssibly even bi-partisan support, for Bush's nominees. That would manifest the claims by the Dems that these people included some real extremists. Yeah, all three are extremists, but if we can defeat one--hopefully Brown--that means they only get two of their nominees, two of the three most contention--Brown, Owens and Myers--go down, Saad's not brought up for a vote, and we keep the filibuster. And the debate is no longer about the legitimacy of the filibuster itself, but rather, at some point in the future when it's used again, the legitimacy of that particular application of the filibuster.

[Petey]

"A lot of things happened today, for a lot of reasons. Few of them were visible"

Most definitely.

From what I'm able to see at the moment, I think the deal was a bad one. But I readily accept that I may not be able to see everything. And I generally trust Reid's judgment. I just wish I knew what the hell he was thinking.

[DHinMI]

And I generally trust Reid's judgment. I just wish I knew what the hell he was thinking.
Don't forget, the man represents Las Vegas. It's a trite cliche, but he appears to be one hell of a poker player...especially for a Mormon.

[Meteor Blades]

I saw Graham's comments, too, but I took them with some salt. I hope you're right, DHinMI, because the possible outcome you're suggesting would be a victory for our side.

[Steve]

I'm not really optimistic about the odds of defeating any of the judges on the floor. It's hard to imagine anyone swinging to our side that wasn't in the Moderate 7, so we need 6 of those 7 votes. And I don't really see Warner voting against any of Bush's judges, so the math starts to get really tight.

I think the biggest gain from tonight has nothing to do with filibusters or judges or any of that. I think the key is the wedge driven within the lockstep R's. The Moderate 7, and other R's who might be inclined to defy the party line from time to time, will wake up tomorrow morning and realize someone defied the White House and didn't get struck by lightning. You'll see more defections, and more setting of the agenda on Capitol Hill as opposed to the White House. It should make for some interesting turmoil.

[DHinMI]

Steve, on point one: Specter. I can't figure him out on this one. Maybe emptywheel--the house Specterologist--has some insight. But I could see him joining McCain, Snowe, Chafee and possibly Collins, leaving only one more Repub to join the no vote.

On your second point, I agree 100%. After preserving the filibuster to possibly be used for a SC nomination--and the fact that it's presevered would influence who gets nominated--the most important outcome of this is to create a nascent bipartisan middle that's truly bipartisan. Mimikatz, upthread, is right; that's a huge development.

MB--Graham dissapointed us before, when he waffled on Abu Ghraib, but maybe this time he wasn't BSing us.

[Steve]

You know, it hadn't even occurred to me that Specter's name isn't on the deal. He was probably as instrumental as anyone in making the whole thing come together, and somehow he escapes the spotlight altogether.

[idook]

The Senate won, White House lost. Took them long enough to screw up the courage, but hey...

That duck ain't gonna fly no more.

[Meteor Blades]

If we're taking wagers on the biggest winner tonight, I call it for McCain. And, unless you're a fan of his presidential prospects, that ain't good.

[DavidNYC]

My gut is going with Trapper John on this one. To be even more cynical, what if (some of) those seven Republicans were playing a deep game, trying to set up the Democrats? In other words, they appear to go along now, but as soon as the first opportunity comes up, they declare that the Dems are filibustering "not extraordinarily" and bam, nuclear option.

It's a smart move if you believe that media attention will be diminished on the next go-round, and that the GOP hand will be strengthened simply by declaring a he-said/she-said war over the "spirit" of the agreement, thus deflecting attention from the substantive issues. I think both of these are true, and I think GOPers are duplicitious enough to try to rope-a-dope us this way.

[sdf]

Re: Specter, I had been thinking about his not signing as well. The "advice and consent" clause at the end of the agreement that Byrd (and supposedly also Warner) added suggesting that the administration should consult with the Senate was not dissimilar to Specter's comments right after the election (that Bush should be cautious with his nominees), for which he was so thoroughly bitch-slapped by the right.

My guess, based on his limited comments, that Specter would have liked to have voted against the Nuclear option but knew it could mean losing the chair of the Judiciary, which is oh so important to him. Perhaps his not signing the deal thus had to do with not wanting to attach his name to something else that seems to suggest that the President's powers on nominees could be limited in any way. (Which, of course, is anathema in Rove-ania.)

I only found one article so far that seems to point at a rationale:

Sen. Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican moderate who chairs the Judiciary Committee, did not join the agreement for much the same reason as Feinstein. Though Specter pleaded several times for both sides to back down from a confrontation -- and participated several times in the talks -- he warned that the breakaway group undermines the authority of the Judiciary Committee.

Seems unlikely to be the full answer. At last check, there was no Philadelphia Inquirer piece on the deal up yet, perhaps they'll ask him.

--Stu

[DemFromCT]

Specter has made it clear he doesn't like the idea of a small group of Senators deciding who's in and who's out. That being said, he also has made some specific commitments to keep his chair. On the third hand, chemo and cancer can change your life, he's 75 and he won't be running for re-election. So I'm not sure even empywheel can guess what Specter will do.

I'm guessing Brown goes down, but I suspect that Graham can count votes and he knows from where he speaks that only 2 of 3 make it.

I still think the bigger picture is what it means to Bush... more on that to come.

[~DS~]

After sleeping on it it looks even better. The moderate Republicans now have a test in place to see how others feel about bucking the Fristies/Bushistas. It remains to be seen if there will be other mods come out of the GOP woodwork. But the momentum has been against the extremists/Bush for a few months now and I don't see the underlying factors which are fueling that simmering down, so I'm hopeful.

[Trapper John]

Let me clarify my position - if a secret portion of the deal has Brown going down on her up and down vote, than this is a win. A big win. Because in that case, we will have 1) preserved the filibuster, 2) defeated the most odious of the nominees, and 3) done so in a manner that shows a clear, bipartisan repudiation of rank wingnuttery. I really hope that's part of the deal. But it seems way too good to be true - I'll believe it when I see it.

[emptywheel]

sdf

Now that I've slept on the Specter comment, I think that's it. That this compromise was acceptable enough for the GOP that they had extras (not just Specter, but Hagel and actually even Lott), so they could pick who should sign the agreement. I think Graham has risked the most--he has a good future career but he comes from a wingnut state where actions like this could shorten that career. Hagel would have risked more in the short term (well, no he wouldn't have, but I suspect he believes that) wrt a presidential bid. And Lott may have been a deal-breaker for the moderate Dems--who could trust Lott??

I DO think Specter didn't sign as a way to avoid a confrontation on the Judiciary. Further if Graham is right and there will be some consult going on, better to have Specter as Chair to lead that consultation.

Retrospectively, it looks like the passage in Specter's speech that I thought was an ultimatum was actually his very honest plea not to go there, where a group of 14 Senators can determine the direction of the Senate. Silly Arlen! That's GOOD for moderates like you.

[Steve]

[Specter] warned that the breakaway group undermines the authority of the Judiciary Committee

What does demanding an up-or-down vote on a nominee (Owen) previously REJECTED by the Judiciary Committee do to the authority of that Committee, I wonder?

[DemFromCT]

Steve - 'twas a different committee at the time. As in all things in DC, depends how you choose to interpret things.

[Steve]

Indeed it was, but there is very little precedent for sending a once-rejected nominee back to the Senate.

[Petey]

"Let me clarify my position - if a secret portion of the deal has Brown going down on her up and down vote, than this is a win. A big win. ... I really hope that's part of the deal. But it seems way too good to be true"

It was too good to be true.

Graham was talking about someone else.

Judges like Janice Rogers Brown are no longer filibusterable, and there are no electoral consequences for the Republicans as a result. Defeat has been snatched from the jaws of victory.