John Podhoretz is dead wrong about this.

The compromise deal averting the filibuster showdown is a victory for the majority and for the Republicans.

The Republicans had the upper hand and the votes to do what was right. They gave that up, for what?

It is not a wipeout. It is not a rout. And for the two judge candidates who may have been sacrificed, it really really stinks.

He contradicts himself.

But what happened last night is very important. It breaks the Democratic logjam on circuit-court nominees.

So would have the nuclear option - without sacrificing any judges.

It establishes the principle that conservative judges have every right to serve on the higher benches even if Democrats can't stand it.

Making deals in smoke-filled rooms by 14 renegades in no way establishes any principle. The principled ones were left out of the picture.

And it means that if Republicans have to break the filibuster to ensure an up-or-down vote on a Supreme Court justice, they will have a very strong argument indeed.

Now Podhoretz descends into stand-up comedy. First of all, there is no IF here. The President, who is not intimidated by the left, will nominate SCOTUS justices that line up with his values. That automatically will be declared as "extreme/extraordinary/outside the mainstream" or whatever the jabber words are today by the donks and they will filibuster. Republicans will puff up in indignation, threaten to "nuke" the filibuster, and the "moderates" will fall back into the smoke-filled back rooms to avert yet another disaster. A deal will be struck and the President's nominee will be rejected in the process. What evidence does anyone, ANYONE, have that the scenario I just laid out will not happen? We HAVE set a precedent now, and it is that the Democrats get their way, while we try to gild the lily with how nice we are. Voltaire said that if we didn't learn from our mistakes that we'd be doomed to repeat them. The rationalization in the Podhoretz comments is clear evidence that we haven't learned.

Mark Levin, author of the book "Men in Black" said on the Corner:

As I see it, we've gained 3 judges we would have gained had the rule been changed, lost 2 we would have otherwise gained, and the filibuster lives, only to be triggered if an "extraordinary" candidate -- i.e., an originalist -- who is nominated by the president, approved by the ABA, and is voted out of committee reaches the Senate floor.

Levin is right - Podhoretz is wrong.

I agree with Scar that Podhoretz is wrong, but I disagree that all 7 of the turncoats will go back into the "smoke-filled room when (not if) the Donks break their promise. 2 or 3 might, but not all 7. I think this whole controversy is far from over. As I said over at B4B, the President will not nominate "safe" judges that the Donks wont't view as extreme. As Scar notes, "extreme" and "originalist" are synonomous in their vocabulary.

I've usually subscribed to the notion that half a loaf is better than none when the alternatives are half and none. The alternatives here depend on how many of those 7 GOP Senators would have voted for the Byrd/Constitutional option had this compromise not been reached. We know beyond a reasonable doubt that all 7 of the Donks would have sided with their party. If 2 or more of the Pubs would have put party loyalty above their personal agenda, then we really screwed the pooch on this and settled for half a loaf when we could have had a whole. If at least 6 of the Pubs were bound and determined to achieve a compromise, then I'm not sure that there was anything Frist or anyone else could have done.

Reid was all over the news this morning saying what "good news" this was. Doesn't leave much doubt as to who won.

...2 or 3 might, but not all 7...

I'd be interested in hearing your rationale for that statement. My thoughts are that since there is now a precedent, and since the Senators are falling all over themselves to congratulate the so-called moderates and their heroic "saving of the Republic", there is likely to be a stampede to the smoke-filled room next time. In other words, it is likely that more - not less - will be tripping over each other to "participate."

We have not yet begun to pay the price for this treachery.

I would just like to add that Dingy Harry Reid's floor statement this morning should be heard by all:

He said about the compromise and in relation to the fact that Democrats would only filibuster judicial nominees in "extreme circumstances" that as far as he was concerned, that's what they were doing with the judges that they had blocked.

In other words, in the Democrat leader's mind, the current crop of nominees cross the threshold and are extreme enough to trigger a filibuster. Guess what we've gained - nothing.

Sacramonga,

I am not going to say that this was a good thing as it wasn't. What as happens is that 7 Moderate Rep. have gotten together with 7 Moderate Dem. and said that if you agree to closer we wont support killing the fillerbuster. Simple people who decide if a candate is "extreme circumstances" is those 7 Moderate Dem. not a left wing nut like Reid. If those 7 Moderate Dem don't view the candate as "extreme" then they will vote for closer if they do and the 7 Moderate Rep. don't agree then the 7 will be free to vote to kill the fillabuster witch is allready know a few wouldn't have voted for instead. If you look back I predicted this would happen the Dem will want to keep this in reserve until either A) they increase there number in 2006 or B) can make it about a Supereme court nominee that they will fight tooth and nail on will be more like to repeat clearnce thomas type of nomation on.