What will the filibuster compromise do for us re. Roberts?

[rhett o rick]

Did the Democrats snookered again with the questionable "compromise"?

[Shrek]

1. Certainly not

The filibuster deal has saved Roe v Wade.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3713311&mesg_id=3713311

[rhett o rick]

2. I am a little slow. But when will we realize a benefit from the compromise

I followed the link you gave but that was months ago. I think it is a huge jump to believe that the compromise saved "Roe vs. Wade". The way i see it, and forgive me for the simplification, essentially the Republicans promised not to outlaw the filibuster if the Democrats don't try to use it. I feel that if Roberts gets Chief Justice and Gonzales gets appointed, Roe v Wade is dead. Will the Democrats filibuster Roberts?????

[MostlyLurks]

3. Two things: diddly and squat.

They outmaneuvered us on this one (once again) and it was clear the moment the facts of the "compromise" came to light. Sometimes I think Dem congresspeople just don't understand language at all.

ALL of the specifics are on the Republican side: they got three nominees through and two got held up.

ALL of the nebulous language is on the Democratic side: we agreed not to filibuster except in "extraordinary circumstances".

Why is that such a bad thing? The Republicans got cold, hard numberical assurances of what was in the deal for them. They KNEW, with the hand shake that sealed the deal, EXACTLY what the deal bought them: initially it bought them the nominees. But anybody, a child, could see that the long term ramifications for future nominees were sweeping.

The agreement forces the Democrats to PROVE what consitututes "extraordinary circumstances" because it's never defined. Not prove to the Republicans, but prove in the court of public opinion.

Anytime the Dems filibuster now, the FIRST thing the Republicans will say is not "Our nominee is qualified because...". No. All they have to say is "We had an agreement and the Democrats are not living up to it..." and we look like petulant kids reneging on a deal. The debate about the candidate becomes secondary. This agreement puts us on permanent defensive status.

Add to that the fact that it makes our side do double the work: not only do we have to disseminate information as to WHY we're planning to filibuster, but we have to buttress that with the idea that those arguments we're making constitute "extraordinary circumstances".

This was the stupidest, stupidest, stupidest thing the fricking Congressional Dems could have done, especially considering polls indicated that most Americans were against the "nuclear" option and that its use could have been a PR problem for the Republican leadership. Anybody with a sixth grade education should know that you don't define specific terms for the enemy and nebulous terms for yourself.

Adding on edit:
Not coincidentally, I haven't heard a single serious peep about filibustering Roberts because the Dems know that they can't prove extraordinary circumstances based on his published opinions. There's nothing in them that overtly points to him being a whackjob, so they don't have any grounds for filibustering. They took the only weapon they had and gave it to the thug that was threatening them.

Mostly

[rhett o rick]

4. You stated that very well, but to sum it up, "We're F*** (Roved)". nt