The filibuster "compromise"

Personally, I think that the filibuster compromise is just one more example of the Democrats caving in. What good is the filibuster if the Democrats can't use it? They agree only to use it in extreme circumstances. Well, the nominees for which the Democrats were threatening to use it are already extreme. So I don't see this as a victory.

However, the fact that hard right Republicans are outraged consoles me a little. I want to share with you a report from the Los Angeles Times by Richard Simon and Mary Curtius entitled, "Compromise in the Senate: Conservative groups accuse senators of sellout". Here's an excerpt:

Under the agreement, reached between seven Democrats and seven Republicans, three of five judicial nominees that have been blocked by Democratic-led filibusters would get floor votes, while Democrats would retain the ability to use judicial filibusters under "extraordinary circumstances."
...
Some liberal interest groups lobbied Democrats against making major concessions, but their reaction to the deal was tempered by their fears that they might lose the showdown.

People for the American Way called the compromise a "major defeat for the radical right" but expressed concern that it "could lead to confirmation of appeals court judges who would undermine Americans' rights and freedoms." Ralph G. Neas, the group's president, said the agreement "sends a clear and unmistakable message to Bush to consult with the Senate and send up a candidate who deserves bipartisan support" the next time he chooses a judicial nominee.

Neas said the group would continue to press for the defeat of some appellate court judges, but he said he believed that "there was enormous pressure within the Senate" to avoid another filibuster confrontation.

Of course, the Republicans can always trot out the "nuclear option" whenever it looks as if the Democrats are going to make use of the filibuster - no matter how "extraordinary" the circumstances. So what have we really gained?