The Filibuster Deal

By now, just about every blog involved in politics has had something to say about the filibuster deal or the nuclear option. But Jim Lindgren at the Volokh Conspiracy has this to say:

Indeed, a high staffer with one of the major public interest groups that the Democrats rely on to evaluate judicial candidates told me to expect an attempt to filibuster Gonzales if he is appointed to the Court, even though she admitted that Gonzales was more liberal than anyone else that Bush could conceivably appoint. In other words, I expected that if Bush appointed someone closer to the political center than Clinton’s nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that nominee would nonetheless be filibustered as an extremist.

As has probably been said, one person's reasonable jurist is another person's extremist. Because the labels are so very relative, it is unlikely that anyone not firmly entrenched in the ideological center will be labeled an extremist. Indeed, such a person could be labled indecisive or worse, unprincipaled. The chances of any administration, Democratic or Republican, nominating someone so centrist as to be practically vanilla to everyone lie somewhere between slim and none. Thus the extraordinary circumstances are possible.

What this deal has done has limited the playing field for votes to not just a small pool of centrist Senators, but narrowed the pool to probably 8 Senators, any five of whom have the power to hold up a nomination.

Here are the Republican Senators who signed and my thoughts on their future actions in the event a judicial filibuster comes to pass:

Lincoln Chafee (RI). Chafee is a true moderate, like his dad, thus will be in play as a vote either for or against a nominee. Chafee as a Republican, represents a pretty liberal state and voting for an extreme conservative is not likely to win a great deal of support at home. Thus a vote to sustain a filibuster against a very conservative or even a run of the mill conservative is likely to play well in the state.

Susan Collins (ME) likely to be in play as a possible vote. Maine is a fairly independent minded state (they have two democratic Congressmen, two Republican Senators and for a long time an Independent governor). Collins has long favored abortion rights and is likely to be in the mix when judicial nominees come up.

Mike DeWine (OH) DeWine probably wanted to be seen more as a deal maker than some who actually had a desire to end the filibuster. This was a shrewd political move for him since he can say at home to both parties in a closely divided state that he helped broker a deal to avoid the nuclear option. But in the end, I believe DeWine will vote with the GOP to end a filibuster. I don't think he would buck the leadership or his President when he is up for election in 2006 and could use their help.

Lindsey Graham (SC) Graham too wanted to have dealmaker status. But with his fairly significant GOP presence back home, it is unlikely that he would ever vote to sustain a filibuster against a conservative nominee. To do so would be political suicide in a state with a large conservative base.

John McCain (AZ) The media darling "maverick" has long had pretensions to the White House and this deal cements his credentials with the media (for a while) as a bipartisan negotiator. His role also makes certain he can appeal to swing voters. But this is as far as he can go and avoid backlash by the conservative base, which he must have to win the nomination in 2008. The deal gives him cover in that he can now vote with the party to end a filibuster and appeal to conservatives, but still have the comfort of knowing that he may not have to actually vote for an arch-conservative judge and risk alienating centrist voters.

Olympia Snowe (ME) See comments on Susan Collins, these two are practically identical in motivations. Snowe will be a vote in play.

John Warner (VA) Of all the Senators on the GOP list, Sen. Warner is the biggest mystery to me. I find it incredibly unlikely that he would vote to sustain a filibuster on a nominee. Warner is not up for re-election until 2008 and in some Virginia GOP circles, there is thought that he may retire at the end of this term. He is not necessarily at risk at home, so I am left with the conclusion that Warner participated in this deal for the sake of the Senate as an institution, preferring to maintain the traditions of the Senate rather than for any political agenda.

There we have it. Among the GOP, there are only three possible signatories to the deal that would be in play in a cloture vote. The remaining four have more to lose if they vote against cloture, either back home or to their future aspirations.

Stay tuned for an analysis of what I see as the motivations behind the Democratic signatories.