Very mixed reviews over at Polipundit
They’re apoplectic over at Blogs for Bush.
The Bulldog Pundit is losing it over at Ankle-bite Pundits
Professor B. thinks that “if threatening to abolish the filibuster blew out the logjam, well done.”
David Wissing’s thoughts are close to mine: “Details are still coming out, but it appears Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor will get floor votes. Saad and Myers will not, but it wasn’t clear if they would get 50 votes anyway.” True, but if Myers and Saad have problems (e.g. Myers has little bench experience) the Democrats should have made that case and allowed a straight vote.
I guess the question of “who won” hinges on whether or not you think this compromise somehow codifies the previously unknown concept that a judicial nominee needs 60 votes to be confirmed instead of the previous standard of a simple majority. I don’t think it does and, in fact, makes it much more difficult for Democrats to filibuster in the future since they run the risk of alienating the moderate GOP deal-makers, who could throw up their hands and vote for the nuclear option if the obstruction continues unabated. The terms of the agreement couldn’t reasonably bar inoffensive conservative judges from the bench (nor would it stop the elevation of Scalia or Thomas) without risking charges of bad faith.
Essentially, the Senate is at the same position as before except three nominees will get an up-or-down vote. It’s a minor, if temporary, win for the Republicans.