Holstering the filibuster.

Byline: The Register-Guard

The compromise by which the U.S. Senate avoided a destructive confrontation over the use of the filibuster to stall judicial nominations is underwhelming. The Senate's tradition of protecting minority rights has been preserved, but only because members of the minority have made an amorphous promise to refrain from exercising those rights.

The Republicans came out with the better part of the bargain, but then, they had the upper hand all along. Barring an agreement, the Senate's 55 Republicans had the votes to bring about a rule change that would have allowed a simple majority to end a filibuster. A long-standing rule requires 60 votes to end a filibuster, which has permitted minority Democrats to prevent confirmation of 10 of President Bush's judicial nominees.

The seven Democrats who signed on to Monday's compromise agreed to drop the threat of a filibuster against three of the blocked nominees. The Democrats further promised to filibuster judicial nominees only under "extraordinary" circumstances. In exchange, the seven Republicans who are party to the deal said they would not support a change in the filibuster rule.

Bush and the Republicans emerge with three birds in hand - appeals court nominees Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen and William Pryor are now sure to be confirmed. The Democrats have less to show. They emerge with the filibuster rule intact, but they've made a solemn pledge not to use it except in "extraordinary" cases.

What does "extraordinary" mean? Until Monday, Democrats argued that all 10 cases were extraordinary - more than 200 of President Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed, and only those whose views are far out of the mainstream have been blocked. Now three of those nominations will go forward, and Democrats are committed to a new and undefined standard limiting the use of the filibuster.

The standard soon may be tested, because the compromise makes no mention of two other blocked nominees - William Myers and Henry Saad. If Democrats employ the filibuster against Myers, Saad or a future nominee, they'll be accused of breaking their promise. Republicans would respond by moving to change the filibuster rule, this time claiming that faithless Democrats left them no choice.

If Democrats don't use the filibuster, the rule change limiting its effectiveness might as well have been adopted. The rule change - dubbed the "nuclear option" - would have demolished the unique role that political minorities can play in the Senate. Instead, the role has been voluntarily circumscribed.

It's possible that the compromise is an iceberg, with much of its bulk - for instance, provisions relating to Supreme Court nominations - hidden from view. The visible parts of the deal, however, are not impressive. It's good that the filibuster has been left intact, at least technically. But the compromise could come unraveled the first time an "extraordinary" circumstance arises, which could be soon.