Redstate

At the time, the Democrats had only 45 seats to the Republicans 55.

Without the "help" of McCain and Graham and Lincoln Chafee, Bush and the Republicans would have been able to confirm one conservative judicial nominee after another.

But McCain allied himself with Chuck Schumer and as a result several conservative judicial nominees, most notably Miguel Estrata, are not sitting on the federal court of appeals today.

Consider that McCain never filibustered a single Clinton juducial nominee during that 8 year period.

And thanks to the Weekly Standard. I have always believed that this was a good thing on balance, despite a couple good judges lost. It's a part of the reason I am supporting John McCain.

And should we have a Democratic President and Senate in 2009 (hopefully not the former, but the latter seems guaranteed), aren't we glad we never used the nuclear/constitutional option?

No one of good character leaves behind a wasted life - John McCain

was to prevent using the filibuster against judicial appointments. All potential judges should get an up or down vote. They should not be treated like any pedestrian appropriation bill.

...but I was never upset about the gang of 14. It helped us get Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court and it preserved the filibuster for Republicans in case the Democrats appoint judges.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Agree that iT helped, but it could have been done a better way.
McCain took great pleasure sticking it to the President again and the media played it that way. It worked but he could have worked with Bush if just for perception.

Angered conservatives should get past their anger and see the actual results, and they also realize that the "nuclear option" has not been taken off the table.

We will not get past that anger. If McCain disappeared from the public scene, that would be a good start, but right now we have a constant reminder, in our face, and of course a nice crew of McCain supporters at RedState to help remind us daily.

Nuclear option is off the table. It is dead, probably for a generation. The next time the GOP has 55 Senators may not be within 10-15 years. And meanwhile two things will happen. One, every time a Democrat president nominates a judge, including the most embarrassingly partisan, Constitution-hating hack (Bader is the perfect example), the Republicans will allow it. Two, every time a Republican president nominates a judge who is eminently qualified, and who reveres the Constitution, the Dems will block him/her if they can muster up 40 votes to do so.

It's war for me, pal. Forever.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

Where is the Gang of 14 now?...Bush still has nominees backed up that the Democrats are refusing to give hearings on so where are they now?

The Gang of 14 is nothing but the Gang of Sellouts Who cares if we invoked the nuclear option, what is going to stop a Democratic Senate from doing such a thing if Republicans try to block a Democratic President's Judicial nominees? The Democrats would have no problem invoking it to get their President what he wanted.

If McCain months ago would have a come to Jesus meeting with consevites and say I should not have spent the 7 years sticking it to Bush because he kick my butt in 2000. Oh sorry thought I was on Daily Kids site. He has the same problom Hill does half her own party does not trust her. It is a shame

has more validity that I do, obviously, but I have two major issues with the assumption that the Gang of 14 benefited Bush.

The first issue is that the Gang of 14, the nuclear option, or a Democratic filibuster were actually factors in getting Roberts and Alito confirmed. We are not dealing with a Robert Bork, good, bad or indifferent. Like much of the rhetoric that passes through Democrat lips and keyboards, the complaints are mostly for the choir and have no bearing on reality.

The reality is that there was no valid reason for the Senate to refuse to approve the nominations of these two men. The Democrats delayed as long as they could, but various polls made it clear that the public was not behind the Democrats, and they caved, as they have on every other pet issue: Iraq, SCHIP, etc. Unless someone can show that their nominations were in jeopardy, I don't see any contribution from the Gang of 14.

Taking it one step further, after Roberts, the problem was not the Democrats, but scumbag traitorous RINOS more liberal Republicans such as Specter, Snow, Warner, etc. If these votes were lost to the Democrats, then Bush had no chance with Alito. (Hoots of laughter to follow) I believe that the nomination of Miers was to discipline the RINOS, and was never serious. Once the conservative Republicans let their opinion of the Miers nomination be known, Specter, et al fell in line and supported the President's constitutional right to nominate qualified justices without a litmus test.

As evidence of said opinion, reference Specter's performances. First, after Roberts was confirmed, Specter told Bush that he had to nominate a moderate more to the liking of Specter. Miers was duly nominated, and the conservative Senators let Bush AND Specter know how they they felt about it. Unless my memory has totally departed for la-la land, there was talk that maybe Specter was not the right person to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Specter change his "tone" to "advising" the President on his next nomination , two-faced weasel that he is. And Miers withdrew, Alito was nominate and confirmed. Screw the Democrats, it was RINOs that were the problem

The second issue is that it made it possible for the Gang of 14 to sabotoge appointees to the lower courts that don't get the attention of SCOTUS appointees. McCain, Graham, and five other RINOs are surely not so stupid that they do not understand the importance of the lower courts. I could be wrong. They could be that stupid. Two appointees have been thrown under the bus to appease the Democrats. And the RINOs.

Efforts of the members have not been limited to "affecting" judicial appointees. McCain has aided the Dems immensely by his public pronouncements on waterboarding. All in all, the nation, and certainly the GOP, would be better off without them.

Okay, if McCain's only issue with the GOP was the Gang of 14, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. But the list of other things where he has gone against the parties interest is very long. The Gang of 14 is just one more log on the fire. It may only be a twig, but the logs of McCain-Fiengold, McCain Kennedy, etc. is more than enough reason not to support McCain.

Agree--it's just another log on the fire.

Disagree that it's minor, at least for me. Judges are huge for me because if they make it up as they go instead of actually reading the Constitution, all the other conservative values I hold aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

I've held my nose more times than I can count to vote for a GOPer with whom I disagreed with on a whole host of issues (so please don't accuse me of insisting on ideological purity) because the GOP was still, RINOs and all, the party of strict constructionist judges.

I was even contemplating finding the biggest clothespin I could find and voting for Huckabee (if God forbid he got our nomination) on the hope that he would at least appoint good judges (but, alas, that went out the window yesterday with his "the Constitution is a living breathing document" statement).

But John McCain shivved everything I worked for for 25 years with his little Gang of 14 stunt. Why should I listen to anyone tell me that he will appoint constructionist judges in the future? When the future was NOW he punted and stuck his finger in the eye of every person who loyally supported the GOP even when they had to swallow hard. No thanks...better the devil I know then the one in sheep's clothing.

"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

It was a power grab by 14 senators that think their votes should count for more than the rest of the 86 senators. They simply held the nomination process hostage to increase their power. That's why you had guys like Byrd (and McCain) in the mix. There's nothing praiseworthy about it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

.

What did the gang of 14 give us? You said that "it took judicial nominations off the front pages". But, you forget. Judicial nominations was a WINNING issue for us. It was an issue that got the base fired up.

So let's look at the possibilities at the time.

1. Dems don't filibuster to avoid the nuclear option.

You'd have to say that would be a win for our side.

2. Dems filibuster, Nuclear Option succeeds.

Absolutely a win for our side.

3. Dems filibuster, Nuclear option fails.

Bad, but it identifies the crapweasels we need to find primary opponents for, and replace at all costs. Some judges confirmed, some not.

4. McCain stabs party in back (as usual) with gang of 14 debacle.

Bad. Some conservative nominees get thrown under the Straight Talk Express bus, in the name of mythical Senate comity. Republicans unilaterally disarm when they have the advantage.

Options 3 and 4 are equivalent. Both leave some judges confirmed, some not. But option 3 leaves the Republican base fired up, ready to kick butt and take names. Option 4 leaves the Republican base discouraged.

There may be a universe where this was a good thing. But not this one.

1. The biggest point you overlook is the very end of the WS article, where the tiny write-up about the writers appears. It states that both writers are in favor of the Senate's power to filibuster judicial nominations. That's a pretty big conflict of interest, not to mention a Schmumer position and unconstitutional. The authors should have revealed their leftist bias in the body of the story. It's pathetic that the WS turns to the left to defend their McCain darling.

2. Aren't we ignoring the fact that the gang of 14 on the republican side was the "who's who" of RINOs? Does anyone really think that the Chafees and Snowes have conserative values or a desire for conservative victory in their wicked little hearts?

3. I entirely disagree with the math the authors throw about to defend their case. I'll take the math used by Bork, Limbaugh, former Thomas clerk Ingraham, and other concervative icons over a couple of authors who have previously written in favor of judicial filibusters.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe