Does the filibuster 'compromise' mean anything?

Republicans and Democrats have reached a compromise regarding the potential showdown related to judicial nominees, threatened filibuster from Democrats, and Republicans threatening to do away with the filibuster. As I see it, this "compromise" does nothing except let 3 of Bush's nominees get approved. Come on, the bottom line is that Republicans are willing and able to vote out the filibuster whenever they think it might be used. Democrats, therefore, are powerless. Republicans somehow are failing to think of the future when Democrats will have the majority (it goes back and forth just like any cycle) - and Democrats will have little motivation to suddenly play nice with the GOP. My gosh, it is such a ridiculous game with such incredibly serious consequences.

Yuck.

Comments

[Rob McDonagh]

I don't know. I'm reading it a little differently. My understanding is that the moderate Republicans have agreed that they will not allow the nuclear option. The Democrats have preserved the filibuster for future use. Particularly the Supreme Court nominations. And they're definitely going to filibuster the (4?) nominees not explicitly named in the agreement - that's part of the deal.

I have a tiny kernel of hope inside, too - maybe the moderates will exert more influence in the future. You know the NorthEast Republicans don't want to go along with Frist on just about anything, so if they can get any cover at all they'll jump at the chance. There are only a handful of them (moderates), but that's really all you need. Anything that will slow down Shrub's radical agenda for the next year or so, until we get a chance to run the '06 congressional campaigns with pictures of Delay plastered all over the country.

Aside: re: Supremes - if the Chief Justice is the one being replaced, I don't understand why everyone gets all excited - he's a far-right radical, and he'll be replaced by someone similar. The liberal groups saying there should be a litmus test on abortion for his replacement are missing a key point - he's opposed to Roe right now, so if his replacement is as well there's no change. Now, if they're talking about replacing Stevens (who they'll have to carry out on a board - he won't go with Bush appointing his replacement unless he's dead) or O'Connor, that's different. Don't get me wrong - if we were in power, I'd love to replace him with a flaming liberal - I'm just saying, since we aren't in power, replacing one wingnut with another doesn't change the balance of the Court.