Our analysis: the deal that averted the nuclear option (warning--that's a .pdf file) is part good, part bad—that’s why they call it a compromise. On the positive side, the dealmakers agreed that during this session of Congress (which goes through 2006) they will not support Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist in any attempts to “go nuclear,” or change the Senate’s rules on confirming judges. The deal also preserves the possibility of filibusters on nominations in the future by saying that Senators can filibuster nominees only under “extraordinary circumstances,” with each Senator using “his or her own discretion and judgment” in determining what that means.
The deal-makers also seem to have consulted their pocket copies of the Constitution and come away with some useful advice for the President. The Constitution says that the President must get the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” in nominating judicial nominees, and the deal says that the Framers really meant it. It encourages the President to consult with Senators of both parties before naming future nominees.
On the negative side, the deal-makers agreed to end debate and move to a floor vote on three of the Administration’s most controversial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, and Priscilla Owen.
All in all, the deal seems to be an object lesson in the meaning of “compromise.” Given that, it’s interesting to see that many on the far right have decried the deal as a total loss—in the words of James Dobson of Focus on the Family, a “complete bailout and betrayal.” They had their hearts set on getting rid of the filibuster in time to push through the most extreme of the extreme for the Supreme Court. Foiled—so long as we keep fighting!
