(
From the diaries -- kos)
Reuters reports that, after a full meeting of the so-called Gang of 14, Senators Michael DeWine (R-Ohio) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) backed off from earlier statements that the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court would not constitute "extraordinary circumstances" justifying the use of a filibuster:
Earlier this week, Republican Sens. Mike DeWine of Ohio and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, both members of the Group of 14, said they would oppose a filibuster. DeWine said he would even vote to cut off Democrats' rights to launch judicial filibusters if they attempted one in this case.
But DeWine and Graham, two of the group's more conservative members, emerged from a meeting of the full group on Thursday, saying members were taking a wait-and-see approach.
There's more.
This is extremely significant. Back when the Gang of 14 cut their deal to preserve the right to filibuster and avoid the so-called "nuclear option," many wondered whether the deal was a good one for the Democrats. Most of the questioning centered on the language in the agreement that said the group agreed that filibusters should only be used in "extraordinary circumstances." Many worried that the language gave the seven Republicans in the Gang of 14 veto power over any attempt by Democrats to filibuster a Supreme Court appointment.
Some of us who argued that the Democrats had made a good deal noted that, as written, the agreement provided no such veto. To the contrary, under the terms of the agreement, the fourteen signatories agreed that each individual Senator had the right to decide what constitutes "extraordinary circumstances" justifying a filibuster. The signatories pledged to respect and support the conscientious decision of any other signatory that a filibuster is justified. Accordingly, under the terms of the agreement, they promised to oppose any attempt to amend the rules to allow cloture of debate on a vote of fewer than 60 senators.
The comments by DeWine and Graham that they would oppose any filibuster by Democrats of the Alito nomination cast doubt on this interpretation. The two Republicans stated that, should the Democratic signatories decide otherwise, they would consider the Democrats in breach of the agreement to reserve filibusters for extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, they would feel unbound by any pledge to oppose the "nuclear option."
Today's meeting, private though it was, should allay those doubts considerably. Part of the meeting's agenda apparently included telling DeWine and Graham to shut up. Neither Senator announced that the agreement says what it appears to say, namely, that they are committed to support the good faith decision of any of their co-signatories that a filibuster is justified. But you can bet that the change in their position from "no extraordinary cirucmstances here" to "let's wait and see" resulted from the application of significant pressure from their fellow posse members.
I can't know for sure that the source of the pressure was a reminder, friendly or otherwise, of what the agreement DeWine and Graham signed actually said. But in suggesting that the agreement was a good one for Democrats, I argued that the importance of individual relations between Senators would create a crucial incentive for Republicans to keep their pledge. Graham and DeWine will likely need the votes of their fellow signatories at some point. I imagine that any signatory who believed that Graham and DeWine betrayed them on this issue would be somewhat disinclined to provide such future help.
Significantly, the Reuters report seems more sensitive to this possible dynamic than other reports on the meeting. Indeed, Reuters prefaces its description of DeWine and Graham's retreat by noting that under the original agreement "(i)t would be up to each member of the Group of 14 to define an 'extraordinary circumstance' and decide if one exists." Because most commentators and reporters have interpreted the agreement consistent with Republican spin rather than the plain language of the agreement, they have missed the importance of this event.
While it is far too soon to know whether Graham, DeWine and the other signatories will honor their pledge, or even whether circumstances will require them to decide, the results of this meeting have important repercussions. By publicly expressing their view that the Alito nomination does not justify a filibuster and, more importantly, that any attempt to filibuster would release them from the pledge they previously made, Graham and DeWine moved to solidify the impression that they had made no pledge to support a conscientious decision to filibuster by a fellow signatory if they (Graham and DeWine) disagreed as to whether "extraordinary circumstances" exist. Thus, if it got to the point where they had to decide to keep their word or betray their fellow Senators, they would have minimized the political damage that a betrayal would cause. After all, why should the Democrats complain of betrayal? Everyone knew that the agreement gave each signatory a veto over a filibuster if that Senator disagreed that "extraordinary circumstances" existed.
Of course, things would be clearer if Graham and DeWine had to say publicly that they in fact understand the agreement to mean what it appears to mean, namely, that they have pledged to support a conscientious decision by a fellow signatory to filibuster even if they disagree with that decision. They didn't say that. But they have stopped poisoning the well, at least for now.