I am not sure how I feel about this. The Ring Wing and Frist's Crazy are PISSED!!! That is good. The rank and file nuts don't like this deal. The real answer to whether this was a good or bad deal will probably take time to be seen. Russ Feingold and David Sirota don't like it.

From Daily Kos:

Still no details beyond the AP's brief description:

Under the agreement, Democrats would pledge not to filibuster any of Bush's future appeals court or Supreme Court nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances."

For their part, Republicans agreed not to support an attempt to strip Democrats of their right to block votes.Some of the judges will get their up and down vote, at least two others will not. Frist doesn't look to happy on the Senate floor. Reid seemed happy.

Thing is, we don't know that we had the votes. We had 49. We needed two more. Did we have them?

Now, some wanted to roll the dice, but had we lost, Dobson would've chosen the next Supreme Court justice. I wasn't willing to make that bet, and I'm glad we didn't have to.

On top of everything, Frist looks weak. He's failed his crazies. He's finished.

More from Daily Kos:

For those who want to be angry at the deal, Feingold is with you:

This is not a good deal for the U.S. Senate or for the American people. Democrats should have stood together firmly against the bullying tactics of the Republican leadership abusing their power as they control both houses of Congress and the White House. Confirming unacceptable judicial nominations is simply a green light for the Bush administration to send more nominees who lack the judicial temperament or record to serve in these lifetime positions. I value the many traditions of the Senate, including the tradition of bipartisanship to forge consensus. I do not, however, value threatening to disregard an important Senate tradition, like occasional unlimited debate, when necessary. I respect all my colleagues very much who thought to end this playground squabble over judges, but I am disappointed in
this deal.

As an aside, the following judges are NOT getting an up or down vote: William Myers, Henry Said, Brett Kavanaughm William Haynes.

From SirotaBlog:

His first thoughts:

The "deal" on the filibuster essentially lets Bush have a number of his most extreme judicial nominees, meaning policy-wise, Democrats agreed to let the filibuster as a regularly-used tool be weakened, or at least be frightened into a corner. It also could be eliminated (or severely reduced) in practice because now Democrats may refrain from using it for fear of raising another "nuclear" debate. The effect of all of this could be to kill/weaken the filibuster IN PRACTICE - one of the GOP's big objectives, so they can ram their agenda through Congress, and fire up their right-wing base.

However, the other goal of the GOP is to keep the filibuster around as a CONCEPT or threat - as a demon for conservatives to continue railing against. As Tom Frank aptly notes in his writings, the conservative movement does not function unless there is some target to run a permanent campaign against ("obstructionsts" is one of the big ones). The continuation of the CONCEPT or threat of a filibuster by Democrats - especially now that its profile has been elevated by the media - gives the GOP that target, even though it may not be used, and has been weakened in PRACTICE.

Second Thoughts:

First and foremost - the radical right is freaking out. That means that, policy-wise, we've not only done something right by defeating the "nuclear" option, but politically we've opened up a divide between the lunatic fringe wing of the GOP, and the (albeit dying and tiny) mainstream wing. It also may split open a divide between the economic fat cats and the religious right that make up the GOP base. This is no small achievement - and bodes well for Democrats. As the Republicans themselves have shown in unfortunately splitting Democrats apart on core economic issues, when parties break apart, their own power is weakened.

Secondly, in the short term, the defeat of the "nuclear" option will be chalked up to moderation, and credited to Democrats. With polls showing disapproval of Congress at a high, that's especially good. The polls mean that people don't like what Congress is doing - and if Democrats get credit for stopping some of what Congress is doing, that's a positive, at least in the short term. As long as they don't get labeled obstructionist ON GOOD THINGS (like they dishonestly did on the creation of the Department of Homeland Security), that could also be a good thing in the long term, as long as Democrats play it right.


Sirota Offers Good Advice:

I'm going suck up my worry for now, have faith, and be an optimist (something that doesn't come natural to me) - a cautious one, but an optimist. Here's hoping the party can turn this into a long-term victory.

Let's say this is a win for us and see what happens.