Josh Marshall

Josh Marshall is editor and publisher of TalkingPointsMemo.com.

Articles by Josh

There's a fascinating article (sub. required) in tomorrow's Wall Street Journal about the state of the Bolton nomination. All the parliamentary niceties aside, the upshot is that Republicans may bring Bolton's nomination to a vote even if he doesn't get approved by the Foreign Relations committee.

TPM Reader TS dropped me a line this evening, noting the article and asking me, in essence: can they really do that?

The answer, I told him, is that if they really want to, a majority, or rather a Majority Leader backed by 51 senators (or 50 with Cheney) can really do anything he wants. They can abolish the filibuster. They can bring Bolton to a vote. Whatever. The senate has no referees or rulemakers who don't work at the pleasure of the majority.

There is a certain logic to the proposition that anything that comes to the senate should go to a vote of the entire senate. The only problem is that both Houses of the United States Congress have operated for more than 200 years by the committee system, which says that that logic isn't the one we follow. Nominations and laws die in committee all the time. Just ask Bill Weld. It's happened, literally, for centuries.

Don't get me wrong. Individually, these rules have been bent or broken here and there. The WSJ article itself notes that something similar happened with Ken Adelman's nomination in 1983. But when you take together the nuclear option business, this new part of the Bolton drama, and other recent developments, you see a leadership (and really, because that's who's controlling this, a White House) which wants to win every time at any cost and is pretty much indifferent to the existing rules if they get in the way.

(Note that the constitutional interpretation at the heart of the nuclear option is ridiculous on its face. But if Cheney will say it that's all they need. We'll get to this point in a subsequent post.)

In a sense this shouldn't surprise us since it is precisely the same mentality and approach that's informed what they've done in the country at large -- the Schiavo case being the textbook case.

It's like I said a couple weeks ago, the Republican party is becoming an anti-constitutional party. They're not comfortable with the rule of law -- inside the Capitol or out.

Late Update: I've gotten a number of emails about this post, each along the lines of, no you can't change the rule on filibusters with a mere 51 votes. You need a super-majority to amend senate rules. In this case, I think my meaning has been misconstrued, though I thought I was clear. This comes down to a difference between can and may. By the rules, the Republicans can't pull the nuclear option. The whole effort is based on a ridiculous argument about constitutionality -- the idea that the constitution requires a vote by the entire senate on every judicial nominee. And they're making that argument to get around the impossibility of getting 67 votes to get rid of the filibuster, as the senate rules dictate. But clearly they can do it. And they just might do it. The simple fact is that there is no outside authority that does or can pass judgment on how 51 senators choose to interpret the rules or how Dick Cheney chooses to interpret the constitution. So, I stick to my assertion that so long as they are not bound by a good faith interpretation of the rules or the constitution, 51 senators and/or a vice president of their own party, pretty much can do anything they want. When you push past the soft tissue of law, almost anything becomes possible.

Plumbing the depths of unpopularity.

It's one thing to say that Social Security phase-out is unpopular. But it seems that President Bush has done such a disastrously bad job pitching it that it barely has majority support among wealthy business owners.

In a poll highlighted on Daniel Gross's new blog, it turns out that phase-out polls 48% among "affluent consumers", a mere 52% among "business owners" and only 59% among "owners of larger businesses."

So, in other words, if the president could only restrict the franchise to owners of large businesses, he might actually be able to pull this off.

As of Wednesday at 1 PM, 880 TPM Readers have contributed to our TPMCafe Fundraiser. We need to get past 1000 by the end of our fundraiser on Friday. Click here to find out how to contribute! And thank you, in advance.

Princeton progressives go all night long!

Yesterday we brought you news that students at Princeton University had decided to take matters in their own hands and start filibustering Bill Frist whatever those jokers in Washington end up doing.

Specifically, a bunch of them got together and began reading any document they could find in front of the Frist Campus Center, the building Frist's family paid a ton of money to get named after him.

We're told it ended up raining. But these young worthies kept at it all night.

According to the campus paper, "students on Frist North Lawn continuously read from the U.S. Constitution, 'My Pet Goat' and other documents to protest recent actions by the man whose family funded the building before which they were standing."

Will campus 'wingers break the filibuster? Will they call out the Pinkerton Men? And how many votes do they need for cloture? Inquiring Minds ...

Late Update: You can see pictures of the on-going filibuster here.

Denver Post debamboozles.

From this morning's editorial: "Conservatives made it easy for Salazar to pick sides. After all, threatening to change the Senate rules is such a drastic step that even the Republicans refer to it as the 'nuclear option.'"

(ed.note: Note of thanks to TPM Reader WA.)

They say zig; they zig. They say zag; they zag.

ABC's The Note reports for duty on the nuclear constitutional option: "NEWS SUMMARY: The Republican White House is standing firm in support of DeLay, Bolton, private accounts, nuclear power, a lean budget, and the constitutional option on judges."

An entry for Valiant Effort Watch.

The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto tries to salvage the RNC's 'nuclear option' bamboozle: "With a vote expected soon on what the Democrats (borrowing a term from Trent Lott) call the "nuclear option," suddenly they are talking compromise."

(ed.note: Thanks to TPM Reader PO for sending us the link.)

Another note of thanks for all your contributions to our TPMCafe fundraiser. As of early this afternoon we're up to 670 contributors. And that puts us well on our way to having the funds we'll need to hire a staffer to help administer the site, as well as cover various design and technical costs.

We really need to get past the 1000 contributor mark by the time our fundraiser ends on Friday. So if you'd like to be part of what we're trying to put together here, click here to find out how you can contribute.

As noted earlier, we plan to launch TPMCafe.com in mid-May. And we're hoping, by the end of this week, to be able to bring you a firm launch date as well as a tentative list of the contributors who'll be joining us in our new venture.