LyfLines: Beldar thinks I'm wrong

My reaction to the Senate "deal" was that it was a short-term win for the Democrats without changing the long-term situation.

In the long-term, nothing's changed - the can's just been kicked down the road aways. If Bush nominates someone to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, and that person gets filibustered in the absence of anything that clearly represents "an extraordinary circumstance", the Republicans are not bound to refrain from the rule change. That is my interpretation of what it says. "In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th congress." What are the "continuing commitments" made? "Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist." So if a Bush nominee is filibustered, and Lindsey Graham and John Warner and Mike Dewine are not convinced that "such circumstances exist", they're under no obligation to "oppose the rules changes".

Beldar thinks I'm wrong. (Well, not me, specifically, as he's no idea who I am, but the people that agree with my take.) I suspect that, as a matter of legal language, he's right, and I'm wrong.

Fortunately for both of us, the "legal language" part is basically irrelevant. This is not a court of law, it's not a legally binding contract. What matters is not whether, if this were a contract, the Republicans would be banned from changing the rules - what matters is whether they consider themselves bound if they feel the Democrats filibuster in circumstances that they consider not to be extraordinary. And they've made it clear that they don't.

But if there comes a point in time in the future when one of the seven Democrats believes this person before them is so unacceptable they have to get back in the filibuster business, here is what it means to the Republicans--because I helped write the language. It means we will talk, we will listen, and we will discuss why they feel that way. But it means I am back in the ball game. If one of the seven decides to filibuster and I believe it is not an extraordinary circumstance for the country, for the process, then I have retained my rights under this agreement to change the rules if I think that is best for the country. That is only fair. My belief is we will never have to cross that bridge. But those who say this is a one-sided deal misrepresent what happened in that room. This is about moving forward, avoiding conflict in the future by talking and trusting.

- Lindsey Graham, 5/24/2005

"...preserved by virtue of this framework clearly in the agreement -- and I've got a copy here -- the constitutional option, which we call it, is not off the table. And we all 14 understand that. It is very much on the table."

- Senator Warner, Fox, 5/24/05 (I don't have a link)

Even John McCain.

HANNITY: But if the Democrats - if this is the first time they did it, didn't they get a reward for this? And what guarantee is there they won't do it in the future?

MCCAIN: If they do it in the future, the agreement we had will be null and void. We've made an agreement that they will only filibuster under, quote, "extraordinary circumstances."

HANNITY: Does that mean that a conservative is appointed? Is that "extraordinary"?

MCCAIN: No, it does not. That will be our judgment, not - as well as theirs.

Look, this was based on trust. That's the way the Senate works. We have to work that way. And I'm confident - listen, I can't tell you. A number of my colleagues came up to me today and say, "Thank you. We need to now go about the business of the Senate."

...

HANNITY: If there's a nominee like a Miguel Estrada, if there is a nominee like a Robert Bork or a Scalia or a Thomas, and the Democrats say that's an extraordinary circumstance, will you then join with Bill Frist and go forward with that option, because you feel that they will have broken the agreement?

MCCAIN: I will - I can't name those names because I never examined any of them that carefully although Estrada clearly was qualified. But if we make a judgment that these nominees are extraordinarily unqualified, we'll agree with them. But if they're not, then we will - we will go ahead and go forward.

HANNITY: But Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, those are all qualified people who should not be filibustered? People like them.

MCCAIN: ...I'm confident that these seven Democrats would not filibuster those individuals.