Roberts has been voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee 13 to 5 and his nomination is headed for a full Senate vote on Monday.

All ten Republicans voted to confirm as did three of the eight Democrats.

This’ll all be over on Monday when Roberts is confirmed.

Of course, Ann Coulter continues to say that Roberts is a bad choice, especially for Chief Justice. She thinks Bush should have put Antonin Scalia in that spot. I have to agree just on general terms: a known conservative in that spot is far better than taking a risk on an unknown. But Ann has an even better reason:

But most important, if Bush had nominated Scalia, liberals would have responded with their usual understated screams of genocide, and Bush could have nominated absolutely anyone to fill Justice O’Connor’s seat. He also could have cut taxes, invaded Syria, and bombed North Korea and Cuba just for laughs. He could even have done something totally nuts, like enforce the immigration laws

In the whirlwind of politication of Hurricane Katrina, I find this the most stunning of all:

Senate Democrats said yesterday that they will invoke the vast disparities in income and living conditions laid bare by the Hurricane Katrina disaster to sharpen their questioning of Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. at his confirmation hearings next week. …

”We have made very important progress over the period of the last 50 years in knocking down walls of discrimination so that people can participate and be a part of a changed America,” said Kennedy, a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. ”And he’s going to be asked to explain some of his advice that would have, I think, undermined that progress in important ways.”

Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said he, too, will pursue questions raised by Katrina in the Roberts hearings. In addition, civil rights leaders whom Democrats have called to appear at the hearings said they also intend to refer to the scenes from the hurricane-ravaged region.

Something to consider as we prepare for the Roberts debate:

In July 1993, as the Senate Judiciary Committee was considering the nomination of current Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the panel’s chairman laid out ground rules to ensure decorum and an honest discussion.

The chairman said the hearings should not be a “dramatic spectacle” or “a trial.” As far as asking about how the Clinton nominee would rule on certain cases, the chairman said, “the public is best served by questions that initiate a dialogue with the nominee, not about how she will decide any specific case that may come before her, but about the spirit and the method she will bring to the task of judging. There is a real difference … between questions that focus on specific results or outcomes, the answers to which would risk compromising a nominee’s independence and impartiality, and questions on judicial methods and philosophy. The former can undermine the dispassionate and unprejudiced judgment we expect the nominee to exercise as a justice.”

The man who set the ground rules for the Ginsburg hearings was Democratic Sen. Joe Biden.

If those rules were good enough in 1993, why should they be changed now, a dozen years later?

Precisely.

Under the agreement that put off the filibuster confrontation, Janice Rogers Brown will be the second of Bush’s previously-filibustered judicial nominees to receive an up-or-down vote. But the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights is planning an attack ad designed to convince senators to vote against her:

The ad says Brown “threatens to turn back the rights we’ve fought so hard to protect … health and safety, equality, Social Security.”

The commercial will air in Rhode Island, Nebraska, Maine and the D.C. area.

You know we’ve come a long way when civil rights groups are attacking an African-American success story like Brown, the daughter of share croppers who rose to the California Supreme Court.

The unhappy:

• Bill Hobbs will not vote for Frist in 2008.
• The Spoons Experience calls it a Filibuster Deal for Dummies
• Beldar also thinks it isn’t exactly a win-win:
  

  And in exchange for giving their promise to violate their constitutional duty — their clear, written, unequivocal promise to guarantee that the Senate as a whole defaults on its constitutional duty — these seven senators got exactly nothing.

• Right Justified says, “The party of the majority has basically bent over to the minority.”
• Blogging for Bryant observes:
  

  This “deal” just shows how a united Democrat minority can win a major victory over a fragmented Republican majority and it should be a lesson to Tennessee Republicans as to why we need to send a principled conservative to the U.S. Senate — not a RINO.

• Captain’s Quarters says welcome to Versailles:
  

  In the meantime, the GOP centrists will have explicitly endorsed the use of the filibuster in dealing with interbranch transactions, against the model of equality among the branches, while the Democrat centrists have betrayed the notion that ideology had nothing to do with their obstructionism.

• TeamGOP is doubtful:
  

  The fourteen all agreed to vote for cloture to end filibusters and allow up-or-down votes on three of President Bush’s ten stalled judicial nominees. The others will remain indefinitely stalled. That’s 30% and this is a good deal?

• Lifelike Pundits slams McCain:
  

  This is naked media whoring. McCain, so high no himself, sealed his doom in the Republican primary for 2008 with this deal.

  I will join any republican effort to ensure his loss in 2008.

• Physics Geek minces no words:
  

  The Republicans, fresh-faced and spirited after their gains during the last two election cycles, decided to pork themselves in their collective asses by capitulating to the Democrats on the issue of judicial filibusters. Worse still, all of us have to live with the image of John McCain puffing himself up for the all but certain photo opportunities with Katie Couric et al.

• What Can Brown Do For You? predicts:
  

  We’ll see this whole thing again when Bush appoints a Supreme Court Justice. The Democrats promised not to filibuster except in “extraordinary” circumstances. To them, Bush appointing a Justice will be “extraordinary.”

• Don’t Let Me Stop You hits the nail on the head:
  

  In the name of civility in the Senate, the “moderate” Senators have abandoned principle and countenanced continued politcization of the judicial confirmation process. This will not restore civility. It will only encourage more of the same from the Left.

• PoliPundit says not much of anything was resolved:
  

  Other than the fact the GOP still is years away from having the kind of political ruthlessness for which the Democrats have been known since “Landslide” Lyndon Johnson’s Senate career. {sigh} And the fact that 15 percent of the Democratic caucus is not willing to filibuster three soon-to-be-lifetime judges about whom NARAL, Moveon.org, and the Sierra Club have gastrointestinal disturbances.

• Power Line says it is hard to overstate what a disaster this is for the Republican Party
  

  I heard Senator Graham claim that he still has the right to vote to change the rules if the Democrats abuse filibusters. But, in light of the language of the deal, this statement appears to be disingenuous. Graham doesn’t get that right (which he probably doesn’t want anyway) until the next Congress. The Democrats get to skate past their latest defeat at the polls and hope for better things in 2006.

• Patterico’s Pontifications predicts filibusters for the first two Supreme Court nominees:
  

  The balance of power will not change in the slightest. And it gives them an inexpensive way to “prove” that they “really mean” they will filibuster only in “extraordinary circumstances.”

• Blogger News Network has a much darker view:
  

  I do not believe this was a matter of giving in to one side or the other, but rather a broader look at a much larger problem. Our representatives within the legislature no longer have our best interests at heart. To capitalize on the current box office blockbuster, they have joined “the dark side the force.” But is this revelation really anything new?

• Right Minded scolds:
  

  Don’t Republicans ever learn? It’s foolish to let Democrats, who advance their agenda only by distorting facts and redefining words, to decide the meaning of “extraordinary circumstances.” To them, any nominee to the right of David Souter could be construed as “extraordinary.”

• South End Grounds lists several problems with the compromise, then observes:
  

  I had occassion to work with several legislators of a similar mind. They find out in due course that no matter how nice you are to a donkey, they’re liable to kick you in the butt if the mood suits them. The sooner that happens to these “moderates,” the better.

  Is it any wonder that history is not replete with great moderates?

• Chris Roach points out:
  

  The Senate compromise is weak. It’s true no one really cares about this issue other than the respective party’s bases, but you’d be surprised how many average-Joe Republicans you meet that voted for Bush primarily because of the importance of judicial appointments. This issue frequently tipped the balance, in spite of their misgivings. For this reason, I think Republicans should’ve made the Democrats go to the mat on this one, staying up all night, and looking like mean-spirited ideologues.

• Fishkite is disappointed:
  

  It is disappointing that the Democrats will continue to obstruct several of Bush’s current and future judicial nominees, but at least we’re getting three more on the bench.

The pleased:

• Say Anything says to look at the big picture:
  

  I think this compromise was a smart move. Those who wanted the nuclear option used now are playing the short game while congressional Republicans are playing the long one.

• The Blue State Conservative says that this is just one step in a war that the GOP is winning:
  

  Overall, if you are a GOPer there isn’t much to celebrate at this point, but the Democrats are in retreat on this issue. They aren’t running for the hills, but they’ve had to take a step back on this issue and exposed that their philibusters weren’t based on an “extreme circumstance” now that a judge like Owen (philibustered for four years) will get a vote today.

• Lean Left has a rather nice reasoned post:
  

  This is also a good day for the independence of the Senate. If the filibuster had gone through, it would have been another step to replacing debate and conscience with party discipline and that, in turn, would have helped turn the Senate into a smaller version of the House – where individual members are pretty much powerless and the Majority Leader controls all. That is not good for the country, so it is good that that step has been, at least delayed.

• BuzzMachine thinks political war has been averted:
  

  I call avoiding stupidity victory, myself. I call moderation virtue.

• The Moderate Voice lives up to its name:
  

  Whether this holds up or not, and whether it’s a political cure or merely a political medicine that shoves the cancer into remission, it signifies one thing: the political center was NOT dead in the Senate and held just enough to keep the Senate the kind of institution it has been for years: one where parties will have to give and take a little to get things, not just get into a steamroller, aim the machine and drive over their foes.

The ambivilant:

• Appalachian Gun Trash jokes that politicians are not normal people:
  

  So, we shouldn’t be surprised when they display amazingly stupid, irritating, and abnormal behavior. They are not normal!

The Roundups:

• Michelle Malkin has a great graphic plus some links.
• Coyote Gulch
• Right Wing News has a post and goes on with reactions from the blogosphere Left .
• Blogging for Bryant.

Seven “Republicans” abandoned their party in a “compromise” that is no compromise.

The Republicans pledged not to support Majority Leader Bill Frist in his effort to implement the constitutional option in return for up-and-down votes on just three of Bush’s nominees to the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals:

• Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen
• California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown
• Former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor

Note that this does not mean that the filibuster issue won’t come up again. In fact, it certainly will — and soon — as the “deal” explicitly states that filibusters can be used in “extraordinary circumstances”. Can you say “Rehnquist’s retirement in 2005″?

So what was really won or lost? The Republicans have given the minority party the ability to stop the nomination process of any candidate for any post. The Democrats have given away an up-or-down vote on only three candidates, which would certainly have happened if the “deal” had not be struck. In other words, they have lost nothing.

By not supporting the party, the majority leader, and the president at this time, the RINO Seven will make filibustering any candidate for any post in the future easier. They have handed the Democrats an incredible victory, validating the ridiculous liberal rhetoric surrounding this issue in the eyes of the American voting public. They have reduced the party of majority to the party of appeasers [i.e., RINO = French].

Of course, McCain [one of the turncoats] has just about guaranteed that Frist will not make a viable presidential candidate in 2008, thus eliminating a potentially powerful opponent.

The RINO Seven consist of the usual suspects:

• Mike DeWine of Ohio
• Susan Collins of Maine
• Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
• Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island
• John McCain of Arizona
• John W. Warner of Virginia
• Olympia J. Snowe of Maine

Again, rules restricting filibusters are not uncommon. Just consider these items that are among the hundreds that are filibuster-proof:

• The Pentagon’s 2006 Base Realignment and Closure plan, which proposes closing 180 sites.
• The pending Central American Free Trade Agreement.
• President Bush’s proposed $70 billion in tax cuts and $35 billion in mandatory spending cuts, protected by budget reconciliation.
• Drilling in the Arctic Regional Wildlife Refuge. The years-long effort by Republicans to pass this legislation may finally succeed this year, because this time it is protected from filibuster as part of the budget reconciliation.

This beast could have been dead and buried today. Instead, the liberal propagandists will continue to spin the facts. We could have returned to the Democrats being the party of obstructionism, a role that sealed Daschle’s fate last election, as they attempted to stop any legislation from moving through the Senate. Instead, they can beat their breast in the throes of righteous victimization.

I am disgusted by McCain’s perfidy. I am disappointed in Frist’s inability to effectively lead his party.

The president renewed his call for up or down vote for judicial nominees:

“My job is to pick people who will interpret the Constitution, not use the bench from which to write laws,” Bush said from the White House. “And I expect them to get an up or down vote, that’s what I expect. And I think the American people expect that as well – people ought to have a fair hearing and they ought to get an up or down vote on the floor.”

Senate Majority Leader Dr. Frist is applying pressure, ordering cots brought in to the Capitol as he scheduled an all-night debate on the rights of a minority party to filibuster judicial nominations:

Cots are pictured set up in the Strom Thurmond room in the U.S. Capitol in Washington, May 23, 2005. Cots were brought into the Capitol Monday as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tn) scheduled an all-night session stretching into Tuesday to dramatize the debate over President Bush’s judicial nominees and the filibusters that Democrats have used to block votes on 10 of them. As the U.S. Senate battle over judges and procedural rules intensifies, almost everything under the Capitol dome, from presidential nominees to major legislation, is in danger of getting caught in the cross-fire. Photo by Micah Walter/Reuters

Democrat Senators previously rejected Frist’s offer of 100 hours of debate on each judicial nomination. Following the all-night session, there will be a vote tomorrow on a cloture motion which will end the filibuster on Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen followed by an up-or-down vote. If it comes to that, Owen will in all probability be confirmed.

But if Frist loses the cloture motion, he will invoke a vote on changing the rules to effectively eliminate filibusters on judicial nominations by requiring only 51 votes to end a filibuster — but only on nominations. Filibusters on legislation would remain unaffected.

This is a vital point that is often missed in the debate over filibusters. Filibusters on legislation can be overcome with negotiation, the give-and-take that greases the wheels of Congress (and sometimes leads to excessive pork). But filibusters on judicial nominees are a horse of a different color:

For Frist and Reid, the filibuster debate presents special challenges. It involves no crop supports, high-tech tax credits or other perks they typically can bestow or withhold at crunch time to persuade vacillating colleagues. With a hallowed Senate tradition at stake, lawmakers are threatening to vote their consciences, making them poor candidates for logrolling.

As Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) points out, filibustering legislation is one thing — the contents can be tweaked and moved around until enough senators are satisfied. In this case, the filibuster’s target is a person nominated to the federal bench, and “you can’t cut off a left arm and put on a new left arm,” he said.

So everything centers on the results of tomorrow’s cloture motion. MSNBC projects three scenarios:

• Five Democratic senators vote for cloture, cutting off debate, as part of a deal in which Frist agrees to not seek the filibuster rule change. The debate on Owen ends and the Senate votes to confirm her. Two other Bush judicial nominees are quietly jettisoned. Both parties claim victory.
• Of the Democrats, only Sen. Ben Nelson, D- Neb. votes for cloture. Needing 60 votes, the cloture motion fails on a vote of 56 to 44. Frist then seeks the filibuster rule change and wins on a vote of 51 to 49. The Senate then votes on Owen’s nomination and those of Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor. Reid reacts by using procedural tactics to bring most Senate business to a halt.
• Of the Democrats, only Nelson votes for cloture. The cloture motion fails on a vote of 56 to 44. Frist seeks the filibuster rule change, but loses on a vote of 51 to 49. Democrats rejoice.

Remember the pre-buttals that Democrats ran before the president’s last couple of State of the Union addresses? This is no different as Senator Reid will deliver a 90-second nationally telivised bit of super-spin, sponsored by the far-left Alliance for Justice:

Unfortunately, some Senate Republicans are trying to give
President Bush power no president has ever had — the ability to personally hand out lifetime jobs to judges — including the Supreme Court, without consensus from the other party.

This abuse of power is not what our founders intended. It’s wrong for one political party — be it Republicans today or Democrats tomorrow — to have total control over who sits on our high courts and rules on our most basic rights.

(One will remember that the Alliance for misJustice was one of the driving forces behind the attacks on Bork and Thomas.)

I don’t remember anywhere in the Constitution that calls for advise and consent by the opposing party. In fact, our first president was opposed to the idea of any political parties.

But the spin doesn’t stop there — Senator Pork Byrd is astounding in his hypocrisy:

I’m deeply, deeply troubled, I’m almost sick about it,” the 87-year-old Byrd, now in his 53rd year in Congress, said of the Republican effort to end filibusters for judicial nominations.

“I implore, I beseech, I importune, I beg the Senate to consider how posterity will view such an occurrence,” Byrd said, his voice quavering.

“My heart is sad that it would even come to a moment such as this. Sad, sad, sad, sad it is.”

No mention, of course, is the fact that Senator Byrd was behind attempts to change the Senate rules in 1977, 1979, 1980 and 1987 (and the 1980 attempt even involved executive branch nominations). His statements in 1979 were explicit when he argued that “the first Senate, which met in 1789, approved 19 rules by a majority vote. Those rules have been changed from time to time.” Mr. Byrd then declared his belief in “upholding the power and right of a majority of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate at the beginning of a new Congress.”

What has changed since 1979? Just the majority party.

Now looking at the spin from the press:

From MSNBC:

At stake: Bush’s ability to steer the courts in a more conservative direction. …

If Democrats lose the ability to filibuster, the Republican president would have nearly free rein to fill the vacancy on the court because of the GOP majority in the Senate.

From the Associated Press:

But the stakes were far broader than that, with Republicans seeking to strip Democrats of their right to filibuster nominees to the appeals court and Supreme Court. …

Senate rules have long permitted opponents to filibuster judicial nominees, a parliamentary technique that can only be blocked by a 60-vote majority. Frist and Republicans have said they intend to supersede that rule, by majority vote.

Amazingly, no — astoundingly — Reuters has the most “fair and balanced” account and even includes this little tidbit of unspun truth:

Filibusters, or the threat of them, are routinely used to derail or force compromise on legislation. Yet they rarely figured in consideration of judicial nominees until Bush took office in January 2001.

A rare kudos to Reuters.

One more point: limitations on filibusters is far from unusual. The Christian Science Monitor lists several examples, saying:

Restrictions on the use of filibusters are already in place on a host of matters, from budgets to resolutions granting war powers to the president.

The more research I have done on this subject the more I am convinced that changing the rules and forcing a vote is the right thing to do. Which is why I signed Senator Allen’s petition and ask that you do as well.

President Bush is going to resubmit 20 judicial candidates that the Senate has failed to act on, setting up a confrontation that will set the tone of politics for the next four years. Liberals, of course, are crying foul, even after the beating they took in the last election. Indications are that the obstructionism will continue.

But Sen. Harry Reid, the incoming Senate minority leader, has assumed a defiant posture on the issue of judicial nominees. He has emphasized that while the Senate refused to vote on some nominees, it approved the vast majority of those who received votes.

“During the four years that President Bush has been president, we’ve approved 207 federal judges and turned down 10,” the Nevada Democrat told NBC this month. “The president should be happy with what he’s gotten, 207-10. That’s a pretty good record for him.”

Reid threatened to find ways to “screw things up” if Republicans resorted to the “nuclear option”, that of getting a simple majority vote to affirm that filibusters violate the constitutional duty of the Senate to provide advice and consent to presidents on judicial nominations.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, said any attempt to stop Democratic filibusters “would make the Senate look like a banana republic” and “cause us to try to shut it down in every way.” Specifically, he has threatened to block the president’s plans to simplify the tax code and partially privatize Social Security.

But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist last month called the use of filibusters against judicial nominees a “formula for tyranny by the minority.” The Tennessee Republican added: “One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end.”

Arlen Specter, as expected, is unhappy about the president’s decision, although he promised to do his best to get the nominations confirmed:

But the most notable reaction came from Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, a Republican who is expected to become the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Specter, who was re-elected in November and seems to have survived a challenge from some conservative Republicans who had opposed his ascension to the chairmanship, suggested that he was also troubled by Mr. Bush’s announcement.

“It has been my hope that we might be able to approach this whole issue with some cooler perspective,” he said in an interview. “I would have preferred to have some time in the 109th Congress to improve the climate to avoid judicial gridlock and future filibusters.”

Among the names the president will send up will be:

• William J. Haynes IV, the Pentagon’s general counsel
• Priscilla R. Owen of Texas
• William H. Pryor Jr. of Alabama
• Janice Rogers Brown of California

Frist is (finally) considering changing the rules for Senate procedures on judicial nominations:

Senate Democratic leadership aides have warned that if Republicans stripped senators of the power to filibuster judges, it would lead to a freeze in bipartisan relations that they compare to a nuclear winter. They say that Democrats would bring the chamber to a standstill in retaliation, but Republican proponents note that Democrats have, for the most part, done so already.

The evolution of Frist?s position seems prompted by the realization that Democrats will continue to filibuster judicial nominees and by growing pressure from conservative groups.

It won’t happen until Fall — at the earliest.

I noted the story of the deal struck with Democrats for getting 25 judicial appointments through the Senate three days ago and expressed my outrage at the Democrats. The other side of the coin is the president’s capitulation in the face of criminal behavior, a position eloquently expressed by Neal Boortz as he takes the president to task for caving in to the Democrats:

Let’s review here. I?m not trying to waste space, but there may be Democrats reading this column. In government schools, we must be careful not to leave them behind when we get into even the most moderately complicated situations. We will call this “back up and repeat essential points” as the “No Liberal Left Behind? style of writing. [Heh - I'm going to steal that phrase!]

1. The Democrats modify the Constitution by requiring a super-majority vote for the confirmation of certain judicial nominees.
2. The president responds by using the perfect constitutionally legitimate exercise of making a recess appointment.
3. The Democrats, outraged at the president’s legal use of his Constitutional authority, bring nearly all Senate business to a halt in retaliation.
4. The president promises to stop any further recess appointments during this term if the Senators will only do the job they were elected to do.

This is leadership? When George W. Bush was sworn in he swore an oath to ?preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.? Just how are you preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution when you promise to stop using a constitutionally legitimate procedure to prevent political opponents from defying the Constitution.. and for this we get a quick confirmation of about 27 judicial nominees whom the Democrats didn?t object to in the first place? Wow! What a deal!