The benefit of perspective on the judicial compromise

Me, last month: “The GOP gained three up-or-down votes and the Democrats gained…what? The opportunity to (maybe) filibuster a Supreme Court justice. It’s a small-v victory for the Republicans, that's all.”

Dave Wissing, today: “I still don’t see exactly what the Democrats gained other than a temporary return to the status quo after being forced to allow votes on three nominees they absolutely hated.”

And now the WashPost has “Liberals rethinking Senate filibuster deal”:

Several conservative commentators described the "Gang of 14" deal as a setback for Frist (R-Tenn.). Frist reinforced that notion with speeches describing his disappointment that two of the renominated judges -- William G. Myers III of Idaho and Henry W. Saad of Michigan -- appeared unlikely to be confirmed. But others say several sharply conservative judges are now being seated, and it is far from clear that the "extraordinary circumstances" clause will enable Democrats to block future conservative nominees to the Supreme Court or elsewhere.

"It looks like in some ways Frist is seizing the initiative," said Carl W. Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. Moreover, he said, liberals may be deluded in thinking the bipartisan deal will thwart another contentious nominee -- Brett M. Kavanaugh, the White House staff secretary -- who is not named in the two-page agreement.

Update – Janice Rogers Brown confirmed (56-43) Extra commentary on the judicial votes today by Flip and here’s the official vote from the Senate. All 55 Republican senators plus Ben Nelson from Nebraska voted for confirmation.