x

x

FLORIDA POLITICS
Since 2002, daily Florida political news and commentary

 

UPDATE: Every morning we review and individually digest Florida political news articles, editorials and punditry. Our sister site, FLA Politics was selected by Campaigns & Elections as one of only ten state blogs in the nation
"every political insider should be reading right now."

E-Mail Florida Politics

This is our Main Page
Our Sister Site
On FaceBook
Follow us on Twitter
Our Google+ Page
Contact [E-Mail Florida Politics]
Site Feed
...and other resources

 

Welcome To Florida Politics

Thanks for visiting. On a semi-daily basis we scan Florida's major daily newspapers for significant Florida political news and punditry. We also review the editorial pages and political columnists/pundits for Florida political commentary. The papers we review include: the Miami Herald, Sun-Sentinel, Palm Beach Post, Naples News, Sarasota Herald Tribune, St Pete Times, Tampa Tribune, Orlando Sentinel, the Daytona Beach News-Journal, Tallahassee Democrat, and, occasionally, the Florida Times Union; we also review the political news blogs associated with these newspapers.

For each story, column, article or editorial we deem significant, we post at least the headline and link to the piece; the linked headline always appears in quotes. We quote the headline for two reasons: first, to allow researchers looking for the cited piece to find it (if the link has expired) by searching for the original title/headline via a commercial research service. Second, quotation of the original headline permits readers to appreciate the spin from the original piece, as opposed to our spin.

Not that we don't provide spin; we do, and plenty of it. Our perspective appears in post headlines, the subtitles within the post (in bold), and the excerpts from the linked stories we select to quote; we also occasionally provide other links and commentary about certain stories. While our bias should be immediately apparent to any reader, we nevertheless attempt to link to every article, column or editorial about Florida politics in every major online Florida newspaper.

 

Older posts [back to 2002]

Previous Articles by Derek Newton: Ten Things Fox on Line 1 Stem Cells are Intelligent Design Katrina Spin No Can't Win Perhaps the Most Important Race Senate Outlook The Nelson Thing Deep, Dark Secret Smart Boy Bringing Guns to a Knife Fight Playing to our Strength  

The Blog for Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Off Topic: The Filibuster Deal

    Couldn't resist parsing the language of the filibuster deal. The key language appears to be this:

    "Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist."

    So, it is the (subjective) decision of "each signatory" as to whether "extraordinary circumstances" obtain in a future nomination fight. On the face of it, then, the Republican signatories cannot say in a given case: "hey, I don't think you have 'extraordinary circumstances' so, to hell with our agreement." Rather - for the reasons stated below - any Republican seeking to get out of the agreement would have to claim that a Democratic signatory excercised bad faith in using "his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether" extraordinary circumstances exist sufficient to warrant a filibuster.

    This is so because the signatories resolved the seemingly intractable problem they had earlier with defining "extraordinary circumstances" by leaving it up the the good judgment of each individual Senator. This works to the advantage of the Democratic signatories.

    To be sure, the GOP gave themselves an escape clause or two:

    - Escape Clause #1: The Democratic signatories' have agreed to "exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith" [Part IIA]; no "good faith", and the Republican signatories can bolt. This, however, is no big deal. In light of the threshold agreement that each Senator will "use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances ['extraordinary circumstances'] exist", the obligation here is only to excercise "good faith" in "us[ing] his or her own discretion and judgment", which is an easily satisfied obligation. Stated another way, the Rebublican signatories could not get out of the agreement unless a Democratic Senator acted in bad faith (or more precisely, in a manner other than "good faith") in using "his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether" extraordinary circumstances exist; this would be a heavy burden for a Republican signatory.

    - Escape Clause #2: So long as the Democratic signatories adhere to the "continuing commitments" [Part IIB] of the Agreement, the Republican signatories will "oppose the rules changes" that would end the filibuster. No adherence to the "commitments", and the Republican signatories are not bound by the agreement. Which brings us back to where we started: what are the Democratic signatories' "commitments" with respect to future filibusters? As shown above, the commitment is only to refrain from excercising bad faith in using "his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether" extraordinary circumstances exist sufficient to warrant a filibuster.

    If this construction is accurate, then the deal is a good one.

    Perhaps a clue as to who got the better of it is this:
    Dr. James C. Dobson, head of the Focus on the Family, one of the conservative groups that had made an end to judicial filibusters a top priority, said the agreement "represents a complete bailout and a betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats."
    "Senators avoid battle over filibusters". There is much more at Blogwood.

3:15 AM

<< Home