Based on reaction around the Internet, it appears that everyone except for the Senate and the media are unhappy about this compromise on judicial filibusters. Why? Let's take a look at the text of the deal and see if we can comprehend what each side won and lost.

Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations

A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).

B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).

Obviously, this gives the White House three of the most contested and vilified judicial nominees in the process, although quite frankly, the Democrats never put together any good argument against any of these three. The Left has to be pulling their hair out over Janice Rogers Brown especially, as elevating a libertarian-conservative black woman will make it tougher to argue that the GOP opposes African-Americans in key positions. However, those are the only three guaranteed to get cloture out of five nominees mentioned.

Now in section B, the centrists have not pledged any guarantees of a vote for either Henry Saad or William Myers. However, they also do not call for either to be withdrawn, nor do they commit to blocking a vote. In fact, they have pledged to use their own discretion -- which may allow some of the Democrats to vote for cloture. I believe that both candidates may well get cloture, but that they have made a deal that some of the GOP centrists will vote against at least one of them in a floor vote, probably Saad. Saad may have sealed his own fate with his ill-advised e-mail attacking Debbie Stabenow in 2003, and the GOP may well have sacrificed him for that reason.

William Myers may just get filibustered, as the GOP probably doesn't want to give him up.

Now look at Part II:

A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

Part A appears to agree to only participate in filibusters when personally convinced of extraordinary circumstances, which has been quoted elsewhere as signifying ethical issues and not ideology:

2. The fact that Senate Democrats are willing to allow cloture on Owen, Brown, and Pryor indicates that conservative judicial philosophy cannot be considered the basis for a filibuster, or an “extraordinary circumstance.”

The signatories may have agreed in this clause not to take direction from party leadership on filibustering or obstructionism, which for now means the Democrats. That would mean a coordinated filibuster might be enough to demonstrate bad faith ... or perhaps not. But in part B, it seems that the GOP signatories can exercise individual judgement on whether or not that is true. Its reliance on "continuing commitments" sounds like an out to bring back the Byrd option if the Democrats balk.

What does all this tell us?

1. Saad got tossed under the bus, although it may come from a failed confirmation vote rather than a filibuster, no matter what Reid says. If Reid demands a filibuster and all seven Democratic signatories support it, it will qualify as "bad faith," resulting in a resurrection of the Byrd option. I think all seven GOP signatories agreed to oppose Saad in a floor vote.

2. Myers may also have been tossed under the bus, although it looks from this that it may still be left to the individual conscience of the Senators.

3. Other than that, it appears that we have returned to status quo ante with an implicit admission from the GOP that filibusters are legitimate, and a matching one from the Democrats that they abused it. "Extraordinary circumstances" will probably be deciphered as ethics problems and not ideology, although the language after Part II-B seems to warn the White House about nominating strict ideologues to the bench from now on.

What we don't know is how this affects the rest of the nominees in the pipeline. One has to assume that the agreement explicitly names all those considered to have issues, and that all other nominees will be treated in accordance with the new rules from the centrists. That will prevail for as long as they can remain united in defense of their agreement.

In short, this could be merely objectionable and not a debacle, depending on how the GOP signatories interpret "extraordinary circumstances". One must suspect that this has already been defined confidentially within the group, and like Sean Rushton surmises, ideology doesn't play a part in it any longer. Under no circumstances can this be seen as a good deal for the Senate majority or for Constitutional rule. The net effect is that an even smaller minority in the Senate has hijacked the confirmation process than we saw during the filibusters -- and like all tyrannies, we can only hope for benevolent despotism rather than disaster.

And we can thank Bill Frist for his lack of leadership and resolve for taking a majority and turning it into a minority. Not One Dime for the NRSC as long as Frist remains majority leader, or for the Seven Dwarves ever. Patterico is on board with that pledge as well.

UPDATE: Mitch Berg starts off his open letter to Bill Frist thusly:

To: Bill Frist, US Senate. From: Mitch Berg, Schmuck Citizen and pissed-off former GOP contributor Re: Your Infinite Cretinism

Read the whole thing. God bless Mitch, he knows how to say what I really feel.

UPDATE II: I'm surprised that Hugh hasn't said much more than this:

It is impossible to say whether this is a "terrible" deal, a "bad" deal, or a very, very marginally "ok" deal, but it surely is not a good deal. Not one dime more for the NRSC from me unless and until the Supreme Court nominee gets confirmed, and no other filibusters develop. I won't spend money on a caucus supporting organization when the caucus can't deliver a majority. Mark Kennedy and other Senate candidates with spines, but not for the NRSC.

I suspect that Hugh wants to see how Saad and Myers gets handled by the 14 signatories as a signal flare for the rest of the slate. If the Democrats extend their filibusters and the GOP fails to respond, then we'll know the deal is a complete surrender. If both get defeated in a floor vote, we'll know the filibuster is dead for this session of Congress, barring ethics violations.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry is

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Deconstructing The Deal:

» "Moderate" Reps settle for three out of ten from The Unalienable Right
So the "moderate" Republicans - remember their names, McCain, DeWine, Snowe, Warner, Graham, Collins, and Chafee - have made a deal that achieves an up-or-down vote for three out of President Bush's ten filibustered nominees. Thirty percent, a stunnin... [Read More]

Tracked on May 23, 2005 9:27 PM

» What Goes Around from Everyman
A couple of months ago, I wrote as follows (cleaned up to get rid of the funny HTML stuff): pusillanimous adj. Lacking courage; cowardly. [Middle English pusillanimus, from Late Latin pusillanimis : Latin pusillus, weak, di... [Read More]

Tracked on May 23, 2005 9:29 PM

» GOP Caves on Filibuster? ! from Sierra Faith
Captain Ed deconstructs the wreck, Michelle Malkin gets out the belt, and The Anchoress frustratingly declares in disgust, "It’s Official: Religion is less nuts than politics!" The Constitution is merely a pawn in the McCain v Frist '08 Sweepstake... [Read More]

Tracked on May 23, 2005 9:43 PM

» A Compromise On Filibusters from Joust The Facts
Live Blogging the press conference, with Sen. McCain at the mike.:The 7 R's and 7 D's have reached an agreement, with the approval of Sen. Reid and Sen Frist. [Read More]

Tracked on May 23, 2005 9:57 PM

» Filibuster Compromise? from La Shawn Barber's Corner
I haven't been following the news today. What is the filibuster compromise? Must be bad news. Irate bloggers: Michelle Malkin (Update), Captain's Quarters (live-blogging - Update), GOP Bloggers, Power Line, Crooks and Liars (this liberal tells the t... [Read More]

Tracked on May 23, 2005 10:09 PM

» Betrayed - Not All is Lost - Both Sides Complain about Deal from Threshold Negative 55 - The Action Potential of Rational Thought
Now the bad news. Even though we are looking at a vote on Brown, Owens and Pryor it is possible that at least one of these three will be voted down on a bipartisan effort. This is being reported by Kevin Drum over at the Washington Monthly in a quote o... [Read More]

Tracked on May 23, 2005 10:10 PM

» Cowards, Quislings, Losers, Liars from Obviously Right
McCain just dug his grave. He will never be President now. McCain's glee in the conference is reminiscent of nothing less than Chamberlain's "peace in our time" capitulation over Czechoslovokia. "The Senate won and the country won." No, John, the ... [Read More]

Tracked on May 23, 2005 10:17 PM

» Analysis Of "The Deal." from The Buzz Blog
The stakes remain high and the 63 million people who sent President Bush back to the White House, and increased GOP majorities in the Senate and House, didn't support the GOP so the agenda can be held hostage to a gang of egomaniacs like McCain. [Read More]

Tracked on May 23, 2005 10:21 PM

» Party of the Spelunkers from CrosSwords
When my wife got the buzz on her Blackberry that was the breaking news alert that noted the deal on the judicial nominations had been reached, I groaned inwardly. While we will have to see how this deal plays out, it would be my belief that Republican... [Read More]

Tracked on May 23, 2005 10:32 PM

» Sold Out... from Miller's Time
The following Republicans RINOs have sold out the base of their party, by allowing Dems to 1) block an up or down vote of two nominees and 2) still let them keep the filibusters for future nominees! The following seven [Read More]

Tracked on May 23, 2005 10:33 PM

» Outrage Of The Day from Am I A Pundit Now?
I think allowing the filibuster of judicial nominees might actually have been a better outcome than the hopeless muddle we have now. Thank you for your service to the Constitution, senators. Now, in addition to the extra filibuster hurdle nominee... [Read More]

Tracked on May 23, 2005 10:37 PM

» Nuclear Option Averted from Tapscott's Copy Desk
Captain Ed offers a detailed assessment of the compromise text and summarizes it with these conclusions. about how "an even smaller minority" now controls the confirmation process: [Read More]

Tracked on May 24, 2005 6:17 AM

» From the Jaws of Victory from CDR Salamander
… but in 1975, the post-Watergate Democratic majority in the Senate (61 to 37) and House (291 to 144) voted to cut off all aid to South Vietnam, It was congressional Democrats and their allies in the media, … who ensured South Vietnam&... [Read More]

Tracked on May 24, 2005 6:20 AM

» "Frist" Tops List Of School Yard Putdowns from The Nose On Your Face
A just released Zogby poll shows that the word [Read More]

Tracked on May 24, 2005 6:22 AM

» A deal or a sell-out? from rgcombs.blog-city.com
So, the "moderate" Republicans and "moderate" Democrats have reached a deal to avoid the (pick one) nuclear/Constitutional/Byrd option. At least for now. My first reaction? I'm immensely relieved that the deal guarantees no filibu [Read More]

Tracked on May 24, 2005 6:30 AM

» We cave again from Of the Mind
Who did not think this was going to happen? The spineless, yellow bellied, rolled-over Republicans have caved to the pressure of the Democrats and the main stream media in regards to Judicial filibusters.The agreement, which applies to Supreme Court no... [Read More]

Tracked on May 24, 2005 6:50 AM

» Here We Go Again from Six Meat Buffet
Sure, it’s not all Frist’s fault, but when you’re supposed to be providing the leadership, you better be prepared to take the heat. [Read More]

Tracked on May 24, 2005 7:43 AM

» I'm afraid Captain Ed is wrong from ThoughtsOnline
I don't agree that 'extraordinary circumstances' will "probably be deciphered as ethics problems and not ideology". The Democratic 7 weren't backing the filibuster up to now because they were concerned about Priscilla Owen's, William Pryor's or Janice... [Read More]

Tracked on May 24, 2005 8:24 AM

» Sh!t from The Art of the Blog
Welcome NIF readers! Senators Avert Showdown Over Filibusters I cannot explain the depths of my disappointment and my utter lack of surprise at the ball-lessness demonstrated by the Reps here. Now, instead of getting the MSM's voluminous recriminations... [Read More]

Tracked on May 24, 2005 2:44 PM

» Disagreement On the Future of the Filibuster from SoCalPundit
To demonstrate the wide difference between Democrats and Republicans (less John McCain) on the issue of where the new deal leaves the filibuster, we go to The Associated Press for quotes from the leaders: Majority Leader Bill Frist said the agreement,... [Read More]

Tracked on May 24, 2005 5:20 PM

» Why Win Elections ? from Rod's Ramblings
Who can save the Republican party from the mess that Senators created today? It has become clear to me this party can not function as a majority and many in it can't shake the minority status our party used to... [Read More]

Tracked on May 24, 2005 7:42 PM

» Some Wictory Wednesday from Hidden Nook
After returning back to the blogosphere (life can get in the way sometimes) it seems that the world has turned upside down. Unfortunately it seems that Lindsey Graham joined the Judas Republican ranks being seduced by the dark side. And it looks like... [Read More]

Tracked on May 25, 2005 3:15 PM

» The blurry line between "judicial" and "political" from CrossFishFreedom: Blogospheric Spam
However, I am not so naive as to think that judicial nominees are not "political" agents in that they will always reflect a bias towards some side of the political spectrum. Still, the nasty tone of the debate that has raged over Bush's judicial nomi... [Read More]

Tracked on June 8, 2005 7:57 AM