Truce, not a treaty
Constitutional Option Still on the Table
So says Utah Senator Orrin Hatch:The judicial filibuster agreement reached by a group of 14 Republican and Democratic senators may be a truce, but it is not a treaty.I've been hearing that a couple of the Supine Seven got an earful from the conservative base after their deal with the Democrats and they may be amenable to reason on the issue; Senator Hatch's article tends to confirm this view.
It remains to be seen if the Senate’s tradition of up-or-down votes for judicial nominations will be re-established. And make no mistake, every tool for returning to that tradition remains on the table. As Majority Leader Bill Frist and even some signatories to this agreement have acknowledged, this includes the constitutional option.
This compromise is not aging well. I, for one, don't see how it really solves anything. A truce is a good metaphor; this is just a temporary cease-fire to allow votes on Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor and Priscilla Owens.
If this is correct, that means our side got basically nothing. The nuclear option is still a possibility, and they get their judges. True, they didn't get their ban on filibustering, but they don't need it for the time being--they got their judges. They can always hit the 'nuke' button next time around.