Pardon if I'm not understanding correctly, but I thought the "deal" was that some of the nominees would be sacrificed. In fact, another article this morning says two more will be passed over.
How does this help our cause?
How are they going to be sacrificed? What is the parliamentary process that disposes of them? If the nominees get the vote, then the principle of voting for the nominees is respected. If some Senators are viewed as casting a vote on a nominee based on some deal, instead of on the nominee ... well, that's tough to justify. I like when they are unprincipled in the open.
There are many ways to look at it.
I've concluded that what got "sacrificed" is the Dems' ability to label nominees as extremists.
Let's say the dems try to filibuster a USSC nominee. Up til now the media and the dems have been able to avoid discussing nominees, focusing on process instead. After this deal, the media will be forced to cover the judge's record...does it provide an "extraordinary circumstance"? It's hard to imagine Bush nominating someone who could be portrayed thusly.
A fair discussion of a nominee's record is NOT in the dems' interest.