Let's Make a Deal

It looks like seven Democrats and seven squeamish Republicans have reached a deal to (a) keep all of the President's judicial nominees from receiving an up or down vote; and (b) keep the Republicans from exercising the "Byrd" option for the rest of this Congress. I started not to post anything tonight sensing that a "cooling off" period might be in order. I may have other thoughts later, but at this point I can't see this as anything but a net negative for the Republicans. They don't get their stated goal of up or down votes on all of the President's nominees (in the process throwing two specific nominees, Myers and Saad, under the bus); (b) they come off looking weak (again!) on an issue that really motivated voters in the 2004 election; and (c) the Democrats live to fight another day on the filibuster issue.

FYI, the seven Republicans ("moderates" or RINO's depending on your point of view and depth of feeling) who agreed to this deal are reported (by "The Unalienable Right") to be as follows: McCain (who sticks it to President Bush one more time), DeWine, Snowe, Warner, Graham, Collins, and Chafee.

I've put a series of links below for those who wish to see the actual agreement and early reactions.

Text of the Memorandum of Understanding from NRO Bench Memos:

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.

This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.

We have agreed to the following:

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).

Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations

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.

We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “Advice” speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.

On NRO Bench Memos, Matthew J. Franck starts his comments as follows: "As I write, Bill Frist is on the floor of the Senate gamely putting lipstick on this pig of an agreement, when he should be denouncing it. Sometimes the Senate's fabled "comity" is a truly disgusting sight."

On "ConfirmThem" at least one poster thinks there is some upside to the deal.

John Hinderaker on the PowerLine blog says, "What a hideous deal!"

Captain's Quarters has a longish but slightly more optimistic view here; however, their analysis starts out as follows: "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."

Update: More from NRO Bench Memos - Two more judges being thrown under the bus by operation of the "deal"?