Defusing the "Nuclear Option"

Everyone has differing opinions on the deal that was worked out between Republican and Democratic moderates to forestall the so-called "nuclear option" on judicial nominees. Even though there was no nuclear option, there will almost certainly be fallout.

This is how I see it.

The extreme right, those fervently conservative primary voters without whom a candidate cannot receive the Republican nomination for president, did not want a deal on this issue. They never want any kind of a compromise on any issue - they want to win 100% of the time, without exception. They wanted the filibuster shut down and every one of Bush's judicial nominations rammed through to an up or down vote, no matter what the Democrats might think about it. They won't get it, and some people are going to get the blame.

The deal makes Bill Frist look impotent. He was supposed to get this thing done and the Democrats crushed into total submission, not allow a back-room deal to be worked out without his participation. This does not give Frist's presidential ambitions a boost – to put it mildly.

This deal makes John McCain look like someone who would stab right-wing ideologues (exactly the kind of people he was trying to suck up to last year by campaigning for the reelection of a man he has every reason to despise) in the back. This is not good for someone who also has presidential ambitions – and who, unlike Bill Frist, doesn't have the luxury of waiting for another election cycle. For McCain it's 2008 or never – and this deal just might help make it never.

Knowing George Bush, and his penchant for having his way every single time no matter what the cost, I think it's a pretty good possibility that Priscilla Owen might end up being nominated for the Supreme Court if an opening turns up in the next few years. Maybe not to replace Rehnquist, but if Sandra Day O'Connor retires, I'd bet money that Bush nominates Owen to take her place.

Do I like the deal? Part of me says no. The part of me that plays the lottery thinks that the Democrats should have allowed the Republicans to get rid of the filibuster, and then reap the benefits of the unintended consquences when the Democrats win back the House and Senate in 2006. I can understand why they wouldn't want to risk it (that might help explain why they’re in the Senate and I'm not), but Republicans have a habit of shooting themselves in the foot when they tinker with tradition.

Take the amendment to the Constitution they got passed in the 50s, limiting a president to two terms so they wouldn't have to put up with another Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And what happened? Who were the next two presidents who could have been elected to a third term? You guessed it: Eisenhower and Reagan, both Republicans.

So I'm not crazy about the deal, and the idea of Priscilla Owen sitting on any kind of bench except maybe one in a public park fills me with disgust. But this does protect the rights of the minority to filibuster, and there are Supreme Court nominations coming. So this might be a blessing in disguise for progressives down the road. Because when George W. Bush gets to nominate someone for the Supreme Court, progressives are going to need all the help they can get.

Tom Moran