I guess in lieu of making my own post, I'll just comment here.

Why is this being portrayed as such a huge loss for Republicans? Before the Republicans threatened to end judicial filibusters, none of the nominees the Democrats were threatening to filibuster were going to be approved. After the Republicans called the Democrats on it, they guaranteed at least three of those nominees' approval. Remember, the Republicans have not been fighting to end the filibuster; they have just been trying to get votes on the nominees. The Democrats have avoided a certain loss, but given up three appointments for the right to retreat. This is an immediate net win for Republicans.

The truth is, this gang of 14 have simply called a brief cease fire. The battle is nowhere near over, it just remains to be seen where and when the Democrats will choose to start fighting again.

Personally, I don't think the Democrats will hurry to threaten another filibuster on some of the current nominees not mentioned in this deal. This would look like bad faith and they would quickly and badly lose. However, I do believe the Republicans who signed onto this deal will probably derail two or three of Bush's nominees as a gesture of good will to the Democrat signatories. That will allow the Democrats enough of a victory to let the other nominees go without a filibuster.

The fight will almost certainly resume when a Supreme Court spot comes open. No matter who Bush nominates, I believe the Democrats will call him extreme, and invoke their "extraordinary circumstances" option. It will then be up to the Republican seven to decide this fight. I believe, based on how this fight was going, that, squemish though they might be, two or three of those seven would vote with the Republican majority and end the judicial filibuster.

Of course, all of this is conjecture, but so is the hand-wringing of maybe giving up on all but three of the nominees. We don't know what will happen as of this moment. The only apparent certainty right now is that Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William Pryor, all previously denied a confirmation vote for the last few years, will now get one.

Again I ask, why is this being spun as a loss for the Republicans?

It's being seen as a loss because it ties the Republicans' hands during the Supreme Court fights, which is what this was always about.

It only ties Republican hands if six of them allow it to. If the Democrats try to filibuster a seemingly acceptable nominee to the Supreme Court, don't be surprised to see two or three of the seven Republicans (Warner, DeWine, or Graham) challenge them on it. This deal is by no means the end of the fight.

"It's being seen as a loss because it ties the Republicans' hands during the Supreme Court fights, which is what this was always about."

How does a simple piece of paper tie their hands? What is to stop the Republicans from applying the nuclear option, or the more politically correct "constitutional option", for a specific Supreme Court nominee. If the Democrats use their extraordinary case filibuster option then the Republican leader, and his faithful, can simply make the case that this does not meet the criteria of an extraordinary case - the fight will again be on because the contract will be null and void.

Then, with the Republican base fully energized over getting one of their own on the Supreme Court the count down to that much desired right wing nuclear winter will have begun and in short order be realized.

One point was made very clear with the winding ethical path that the Republican leadership cut to circumvent the 214 year filibuster tradition - No standing rule, no precedent, no piece of paper can stand in their way when they continue their mission to do what is right for all of America.

What reasonable argument can be made, with what has transpired over this last few weeks, that a piece of paper, signed by moderate and rational minds, will prevent what 214 years of tradition almost failed to do? There is no reasonable agrement that will support this case because nothing about the last few weeks has been about reason and rationality - it has been about ideology and power.

What you and many other team sport Republicans and Democrats have been missing is the real statement that is being made by the rational 14 - the idea that the federal government is here not only to give a voice to all of the people but to hear that voice. The picture that you seem blinded to is the one painted by the questions that were raised by the rational 14. Questions such as: "Why can't the Legislative and Executive branches attempt to serve all of America?"; "Why don't we try, as the founding father's intended, to serve both the majority and the minority in this republic?"; "Why can't the Executive Branch make an honest attempt to confer with all parties in the Legislative Branch before submitting the names of non-elected life time appointees?"; "Why, in this democracy, is it worthy of any majority party to impose their rule on everyone without first attempting to reach a meaningful consensus?"

You see Jeff, in the end, the words written on a piece of paper only have meaning to people of honor and principle. As I see it the only way a 214 year tradition could disappear in one vote on an average American day, with all the extreme challenges that our country has been through in these two centuries, is if at least 50 senators and one vice president fell very short on the scale that measures the honor and principle of men. Thankfully 14 men and women showed the higher levels that this scale can reach.

I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, so perhaps I fall somewhat outside your analysis. In general, I slide slightly towards the Republican position on this issue, because I believe strict constructionist judges will help restore the Constitution to actual meaning, and because I believe that the President, so long as he's not nominating criminals or anti-constitutionalists or traitors or tyrants, should have his way on appointments to the courts.

I don't think that any politicians, Republican or Democrat, can be generally trusted. Politicians, to paraphrase the saying for nations, have interests, not principles. I do note, however, that a lot of the cant you repeat above is misleading. In particular:

• that the filibuster has been a traditional way to block judges: it has not
  
• that the filibuster is unabridgeable and attempting to alter it destroys the comity of the Senate: it was removed from four different categories (including treaties, under the Constitutional reasoning the Republicans originally intended to use) by the Democrats when Robert Byrd was majority leader
  
• that the voice of the people has not been heard on nominations: it has, through public commentary, the representative process, and the actions of interest groups on both sides
  
• that John McCain and Robert Byrd (and others among the 14) have something noble about them: they are lying, filthy politicians as much as anyone else in the Senate; they may or may not have done good, but what they did was to serve their own and their constituents' interest (if you doubt this, not how much pork goes to fund things in West Virginia named after Robert Byrd, or what a news slut John McCain is)
  
• that the President did not confer with Congress before nominating these judges: in fact, the President followed the traditional and accepted processes used by prior presidents, but the Democrats under Daschle and later Reid demanded more say than the Senate minority had ever had before
  
• that this is a nation that rules by consensus: that has never been the case
  

You do make one excellent point: "There is no reasonable agrement that will support this case because nothing about the last few weeks has been about reason and rationality - it has been about ideology and power." Yes, that is true. For both sides of the Senate debate.

This whole thing has been a parlimentary sideshow - and I had no problem with either outcome. All the 14 senators did was (temporarily) restore the status quo. More nominees will get a vote now, and the truce will stand until the Democrats decide to invoke the "extreme circumstances" clause. Once they do that on a very passable nominee (and they will), Frist will immediately invoke the Byrd option.