What a deal!

Of course I'm way behind on my blogging, and I'm sure everybody is already sick and tired of The Deal, but I'd just like to say that out of all the different voices and opinions out there on this matter, my viewpoint most closely resembles Nathan Newman's. The compromise was a win for moderate Republicans, a loss for extreme Republicans and a loss for Democrats, period.

So this deal is perfect for the moderate GOPers. Filibusters are allowed only on judges that the moderate GOPers say may be filibustered. And those moderate GOPers get to vote against those candidates that are filibustered, playing the double game of keeping their conservative bona fides while claiming to uphold traditions of the Senate.

Also read Nathan's follow-up post on why it will clarify and strengthen progressive causes if we put an end to all judicial activism.
In the same vein as Bradford Plumer's short, wry take on what the deal means for the future, I think what we have done is compromised our present ability to exercise the filibuster without curbing the ability for Republicans to use filibusters in a future Democratic Senate. Imagine if, as Brad lays out in his thought experiment, if the Democrats retake the Senate and push for something that is as anathema to the Republicans as Priscilla Owens is to Democrats -- a massive healthcare bill, whatever. The Republicans will naturally filibuster, as is their right to do so according to the rules. But after all their noble words about senate tradition and minority rights, what can the Democrats to to stop them?