Fourteen Senate moderates have reached an agreement that derails the Republicans from changing Senate rules to prevent the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominees. The agreement does not prevent Democrats from using the filibuster against judicial nominees. Democrats got the better of the deal.

The Republicans get an up-or-down vote on three of President Bush's stalled appeals court nominees: Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William Pryor. Republicans roll over and allow Democrats to continue to block two of Bush's nominees. The Democrats also get the right to filibuster future nominees in "extraordinary" circumstances. What's an "extraordinary" circumstance? Anything a senator defines it to be.

The self-congratulatory tone of the moderate senators in their post-agreement press conferences was off putting. "We have kept the Republic," West Virginian Robert Byrd melodramatically held. "We have lifted ourselves above politics." "What would happen to the Senate if the nuclear option were done?" wondered Virginian John Warner. Nebraskan Ben Nelson maintained the Senate averted a "meltdown." Failure to reach a resolution, South Carolina's Lindsey Graham remaked, risked "putting us at peril in a time of war." This agreement, claimed Louisiana's Mary Landrieu saved the Senate from "perhaps pass[ing] a point of no return."

Since Democrats retain the right to filibuster, and Republicans retain the right to change the Senate rules, the agreement didn't put the issue to rest. It merely put it off for another day. What else is new?

I hate moderates!

I hope the White House and the RNC targets all 7 "Republican" Senators for defeat in the primaries when they're up for re-election.

This is not over. It won't be so easy to sweep under the rug when a Supreme retires.

It would be very easy for Republican to get around this problem by actually forcing the Dems to old-fashioned filibuster, as in, the Senate can't do anything until the filibuster has ended. That could happen easily by putting all legislation on one track as is was until the Dems changed it 30 years ago. The reason Dems can filibuster these judges is because filibustering judges is cheap. Make it more expensive, and problem solved. That is, instead of threatening an end to filibusters, why don't they just restore the real filibuster and make them fight it out and hold up all legislation? This would be particularly easy now that the Dems have pledged their souls to this "great tradition of the Senate."

Now why won't the Republicans do this? Hmmm. Maybe because threatening the nuclear option without pushing the button is what they want-- because it will earn them points with people like Brad without alienting the McCain droolers.

"...because it will earn them points with people like Brad...."

Was my use of "hate" and "target for defeat" ambiguous? Were you able to detect some hidden praise in my comment? Don't be ridiculous.

Apparently, you don't understand the religious right. The Republicans will pay a price for this with their base.

BS, Brad. The Republicans only solidify their base by making it seem like they ALMOST succeed everytime. If the republicans prioritized the issues their base really cares about, the most important stuff would get done. The reason it doesn't get done is because we elect people with occasionally big conservative mouths and big status quo-, pork-, business-, nationalist-, incumbancy-agendas. Bush is a symbol of this -- why doesn't he recess appoint these judges? Because he doesn't want to risk his "legislative agenda." Did the base hold him accountable for giving in on recess appointments? Did you?

Democrats guilty of "ABUSE OF POWER" they don't even have!

Republicans innocent of acting like they won the elections in 2004!

America duped !!! Both parties are sleeping in the same bed dispite their rhetoric to the contrary. All we get is retarded, in-bred lawmaking from D.C.!

Sick of the word "MODERATE" in politics. No one is sent to D.C. to be lukewarm and leave a legacy as "loser" ! Unfortunately, these losers watered-down any major change in our courts that we crave !

My funds will go to strong, individual leaders; but not one dime will ever go to R.N.C.

For the first time, I will be paying lots of attention to third-party candidates in 2008 !

A Texas guy numb with betrayal.

Heard the sound bites this morning from McCain and Byrd saying what a great compromise this has been and in particular the obstructionist, segregationist Byrd patting himself and his Senate colleagues on the back for a job well done.

What a disgusting lot! And McCain should be ashamed of himself. Talk about your RINOs! He’s always ready to compromise with the dark side and it often appears that he wants to be one of them.

And here’s a Ted Kennedy classic:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/11/16/132412.shtml

Funny how the rotund Senator from Massachusetts can get a pass to say anything that constitutes a thought in that peabrain.

After this deal, I've come to a conclusion. The Republican party has earner a new mascot. So what'll it be? A Eunuch, or a Gelding? Any other ideas?

Why should we try to win majorities in elections if we aren't going to use them? The fillibuster rule has been changed numerous times, and as far as I know, the last to do it were the dems changing it from 66 votes to 60 votes to keep the Republicans from exercising their right as a minority (why the media have a hard time remembering this fact is beyond me). And yet we have to listen to this BS about how 200 years of Senate tradition have been preserved because of a handful of "Republican" sellouts? It just makes me feel that any effort I put into the 04 election has just went to naught. Thanks McPain, you will lose now.

Everything Mark Twain ever said about the Congress is coming back to me...

" 'At six you stole sugar. At ten you stole money. As a teen, you became a reporter. As an adult, already hardened in crime, you became an editor. Things will grow worse for you: you will be elected to Congress...'

I cringed... it seemed hard to have to go to Congress."

Can't remember the short story, and I'm paraphrasing, but you see the idea.

Moderation and compromise are two of the pillars of republican government. So, too, it seems is the filibuster. And it has not been preserved for Democrats only.

1. The following is from a South Carolina newspaper presenting comments on and by Sen. Linday Graham regarding why he helped work out yesterday's compromise on filibusters. Disagree with it, Gentlemen, if some of you must but don't dismiss it:

“If the Senate blows up, forget about Social Security. If the Senate blows up, forget about getting things done for the country. We’re gonna institutionalize the culture of hatred to where it will spill over into the next Senate.”

But he’s even more worried about the judiciary.

“I’m a conservative. I’ve been the most vocal critic of the filibuster,” he said. “I believe in the traditional filibuster for legislation. I don’t believe 40 senators have the right to change the constitution by Senate rule” — which is what some Democrats want to do.

“The Constitution, as I see it, had a role for the Senate to play, and that was: Vote.”

But as much as he disagrees with some Democrats on this, he’s glad to find others he can work with, because the republic is at stake. Our system depends on judges to be fair umpires, to “call balls and strikes” without prejudice, he said. And now: “We’re creating an aura where balls and strikes are not what we’re looking for. We’re looking for people who think like we do.”

That’s completely unacceptable. “Politics is about loud noise and 50 plus one,” he said. “The courtroom should be a quiet place where it shouldn’t matter if you’re popular — a place where the unpopular cause... gets a fair shake.”

For Sen. Graham’s part, “I will not let somebody’s individual belief about pro-life or pro-choice determine my vote.” What he asks is, “Can you be different from me and be fair?”

http://www.thestate.com/mld/state/news/opinion/11708595.htm

I heard some nonsense on one of the radio shows while driving in this AM. The one host was complaining that the R's had the D's by the balls and wouldn't squeeze. The other guy kept saying, "Oh, we still have the option, and when it comes time to nominate a Supreme Court Justice, THEN we'll see their true colors." Presumably meaning that there will be more obvious popular support for abolishing the filibuster then. Wha??? Haven't we all already seen the D's true colors?

And does anyone really think that trying to abolish the filibuster when an SC Justice is up for a vote will be easy? Right now, we have a general pattern of obstruction and it's reasonable to take measures to keep the business of the Senate moving. When the SC comes into play, it really WILL look like the R's are trying to ram a judge down the country's throat.

This was the only chance to do this. Anyone that thinks this issue will ever gain this kind of momentum again is on that famous river in Egypt.

It seems to me that the republicans are getting votes on judges they weren't before, and they didn't have to rewrite the rule book to do it. This is a certainly a step forward, and they don't look like bullies. How they look to swing voters is important if they are to continue to rule. In time, if they continue to hold the majority, they will make more steps forward. Much anger you have. Patience you lack, yes.