From
FoxNews.com
Top Nelson aides had earlier told FOX News that Nelson and five Democrats are willing to allow floor votes on Owen and Brown, but only if Republicans agree to keep the filibuster -- albeit sparingly -- and abandon some of the president's lesser-known judicial nominees. Brown is a California Supreme Court justice nominated to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
There are only 4 possible outcomes for Democrats on the nuclear option:
- Frist can't get the 50 votes he needs. HUGE WIN
- Centrists make deal that preserves filibuster and blocks Owen, Brown, and Pryor. BIG WIN
- Centrists make deal that preserves filibuster and confirms Owen, Brown, and Pryor. HUGE LOSS
- Frist gets his 50 votes. HUGE LOSS
Whereas Harry Reid has in the past floated compomises that fall under the
BIG WIN, Nelson is aiming squarely for HUGE LOSS. Why are those last two outcomes listed above basically the same for Democrats? Answer after the break...
Owen, Brown, and Pryor represent the standand which Senate centrists will apply to future SCOTUS nominees.
But will they mark the threshold of acceptance or rejection? That is the key quesiton. Retaining the filibuster is meaningless if judges such as these three are blessed as acceptable for life-time appointments. I've written before, against prevailing sentiment, that Democrats would be wise to seek compromise here. But for that compromise to have any value with reagrd to future SCOTUS nominees, or electorally, is must include blocking the darlings of the theocratic right.
Note to Nelson, Salazar, et all. If you think your GOP counterparts are going to vote with Frist, by all means make a deal. But today is your day to take a stand against right wing activist judges! Send out a clear message about what using the filibuster 'sparingly' means - it means reserving it for judges just such as these three: Owen, Brown, Pryor.
~END~