So, it looks like a compromise has been reached on judicial filibusters. The agreement is:

Under the terms, Democrats agreed to allow final confirmation votes for Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor, named to appeals court seats. There is “no commitment to vote for or against” the filibuster against two other conservatives named to the appeals court, Henry Saad and William Myers.

The agreement said future nominees to the appeals court and Supreme Court should “only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances,” with each Democrat senator holding the discretion to decide when those conditions had been met.

“In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement,” Republicans said they would oppose any attempt to make changes in the application of filibuster rules.

At first glance, I wasn’t too happy with this, as Avedon is over at Eschaton. Then, I checked Kos and noticed that the other side seems really pissed about it. Now, I’m not one to decide it’s a good deal because the opposition hates it, but it does force a bit more thought on the subject.

Democrats let through the three worst nominees, but they can still filibuster any Supreme Court nominee. That, however, might not be so easy. The deal says only under “extraordinary circumstances” should there be any filibuster attempts. What happens if Bush nominates a far right judge? Is that extraordinary enough? Does the deal breakdown if Democrats filibuster?

I’m sort of (but probably shouldn’t be) surprised at the reaction from the right. Not surprisingly, the Freepers are going crazy. They didn’t completely lose, though: they got the three most conservative nominees through. Small consolation prize when compared to a SCOTUS nominee? Probably, but it is something. It’s not like Bush has to nominate a liberal now. If it does anything, it pushes him to nominate a moderate.

So, all told, I think we did ok. We gave up three pretty bad nominees, but probably preserved the ability to stop a really bad SCOTUS nominee.