Via Knight Ridder: Some senators seek compromise in judicial nominee deadlock

Sens. Trent Lott, R-Miss., and Ben Nelson, D-Neb., are spearheading the effort in an attempt to avert a historic confrontation over the Senate’s tradition of unfettered debate.

[…]

Nelson said Monday he has commitments from at least six Democrats not to support filibusters against future Bush judicial nominees, except in “extreme circumstances.” (That phrase remains vague pending further negotiations.)

In exchange for that concession by the six Democrats, the six dissident Republicans wouldn’t support any attempt to shut down the Democrats’ right to filibuster.

However, before any such deal can be struck, significant obstacles must be resolved, including which, if any, of the currently blocked judicial nominees would be approved.

“What you do with the pending seven judges is still subject to negotiations,” Nelson said.

Lott’s office released a statement on Monday saying, “There is no deal,” although he has been seeking one. His spokeswoman, Susan Irby, said Lott hasn’t changed his mind that “all judicial nominees should have an up or down vote on the Senate floor.”

Quite frankly, something like this is what ought to happen: the minority party should be able to filibuster, but only in rare circumstances, and they should make their case on the floor. As I noted yesterday: the current nominees have been approved by the ABA, and many have faced Senate confirmation in the past. As such, the idea that these are all radical beyond words is difficult to argue.

Still, as I have maintained, it is in the Democrats’ interest to be reasonable, rather than to obstruct en masse.

Efforts to negotiate by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., have gone nowhere and served only to harden their partisan positions, but the Lott-Nelson approach could give the Senate a way out of the impasse.

At this point it may be difficult for the Democrats to back up this far, however.