the right wing is pretty pissed:

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/05/dobson-has-been-betrayedthe-other-side.html

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/23/21552/1503

if they're mad, then something must be right. i think people who wanted the showdown were angry. both sides thought they had the votes and the other side would look weak.

This is just another example of the spineless democrats rolling over and submitting to the republicans. This is why the democratic party is dying. Not by compromise, but by stooping down and licking the boots of the theocrats in the name of "bipartisanship". Now these justices will be approved, we're going to get screwed, and the repugs yet again kick us in the teeth with the help of the "moderate" democrats. The only compromise I see is the reach around we're giving them while they're busy buggering us.

God damn it!

from my understanding, the dem's orignally filibustered 10 judges. bush has re-nominated 7 of them (-3). we have agreed to allow a vote on 4 or 3 of them (-3 or -4).

so, for a minority party to elminate at least 6 of 10 judges from the bench and preserve the filibuster for the eventual supreme court nominee sounds pretty good.

While I don't hold the same perspective as che420, I also see things less positively than you. From my vantage, the Dems filibustered 10 judges, 7 were re-nominated, and through strong-arm tactics the GOP circumvented the filibuster to get four of them to a vote. Where that is -6 judges to you, that is +4 for me. Half empty? indeed. But coming out of all this with lower overall Senatoral approval ratings, four undesireable federal judge candidates muscled through through the system, and the same level power for the future as the law already allowed is not to me, as part of this American people they so freely talk about, a victory. Dour as it may be, in my view we got worked.

i can see your point. but, i also see another positive in your view. the overall senatoral approval rating is down... but who is in control of the senate?

i think that in the eyes of most americans, this reflects badly upon the GOP. the GOP is in control and instead of doing something about health care, the economy, social security, etc they're pissing their time away with the filibuster.

this plus the GOP invasion into the shiavo case sets the Dems up pretty well for 2006. now, if they can take advantage of it is another question.

This is a complicated thing. The "Dems" didn't really do anything as a whole. Harry Reid, the leader, stood up against a huge power grab and established a huge political cost. Then a small group of moderate D's joined with some moderate R's and negotaited a settlement that may or moay not hold.

I think this is a godd day for us for two reasons:

1. The right of the minorioty party to fillibuster crazy-ass judicial nominees survives for another day. Whether you are a D, an R or anything else, that is a good thing.

2. In spite of being a minority in a time when partisan rancor is so bad that the Senate Majority Leader behaves no differently than the House Majority Leader, Democrats were able to force a compromise.

3. Democrats, in a new development for us as a party, are showing powerful unity. We are not giving ground, we are not splintering. We held the line long enough to win a stalemate. In the world of the Senate and of the vicious politics of Dobson and the American Taliban, that is a huge deal.

Finally, remember the risks these guys just took and that calling them spineless just isn't fair. Hell, two weeks ago a Republican Senator campaigned in a Democrats' State (Nebraska). These are bad times for risk takers.

I am not a big Lieberman fan, but lets cut these guys a break.

PS. Go check out the anger at freerepublic.com. Let them scream at each other, lets find a way to encourage our party to include both hard-liners and moderates.

I recall reading that Bush wanted to renominate all ten judges, but three either had retired or chose to decline the renomination. I can't remember where I read this but here is at least one reference to that fact:

"Democrats have promised to continue to block the nominees they held up during Bush’s first term. Democrats blocked 10 judicial nominees from confirmation through filibuster threats. Three withdrew, and Bush renominated the rest." ( Columbia Daily Tribune )

i think what i said was accurate... only 7 of 10 judges were re-nominated. 3 of them decided it wasn't worth it, for whatever reason. either they decided the fight wasn't worth it or they felt that the tide was against them.

I guess I wasn't so much disagreeing with what you said, but rather taking the opportunity to point out this out: Most news stories just say "Bush re-nominated 7 of the 10 filibustered nominees" and from that, one could come to the conclusion that Bush actually exercised some restraint by choosing only 7 of the 10 to re-nominate. It wouldn't surprise me if Bush supporters out there are using this as evidence to convince people that the Republicans are being reasonable about this. In actuality, he tried to re-nominate all of them, and had they all been available and had they all accepted, he would have. Just wanted to give folks some additional info to counter that argument in case they encounter it.

good point. ** blushes and walks away **

Rush Limbaugh Show ^ | May 24, 2005 | Rush Limbaugh
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: If we can't even control who is appointed to the Supreme Court when the Republicans have the presidency and the Senate, then we never will. If we can't control who gets on the Supreme Court when we have the White House and the Senate, we never, ever will. Let me ask you this: If the Democrats had the White House and the Democrats controlled the Senate, do you think that they would be surrendering their power for judiciary appointments? Hell no! We are. We are, because of seven renegades, six of whom I can't begin to explain...