Impending Compromise on Filibuster of Judicial Nominations?

I was away for a meeting on Wednesday evening and so didn't see Hardball until its 11:00 P.M. Eastern Time replay.

During one segment, David Schuster reported on an interview he conducted on the Washington equivalent of the red carpet with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist before last evening's gala fundraiser in honor of Nancy Reagan.

Frist's responses to several Schuster questions seemed to indicate that a compromise on getting rid of the filibuster during debates over judicial nominees was pending. Later comments by Senator John Warner, rumored to be one of several Republicans less than enthralled with the so-called "nuclear option," pointed to the probability of a deal of some sort.

Pardon me if I gloat a little. I'm not always the most accurate prognisticator. But yesterday, in an interesting discussion in the Comments section of a post by Ann Althouse, I predicted that a compromise would emerge.

Here is a sample of my reasoning:

As a general observation, I would say that we hold elections for a reason. When we vote for presidential candidate A, we expect him or her to appoint folks to both the executive and judicial branches who are broadly reflective of their views. I expect George W. Bush to appoint pro-life rather than pro-choice jurists to the bench. So, I agree with former Senator Dole, who wrote in the NYTimes a few weeks ago, that the president's nominations ought to get a straight up-and-down vote.

But I also agree with Dole on another point he has made during this debate over judicial filibustering. The majority needs to be smart in how it uses its power. They shouldn't throw out the filibuster on the basis of temporary political exigencies. The nuclear option could blow up later in Republicans' faces. Exercising that nuclear option would then be seen as the act of political suicide bombers.

Quite simply, it's in everybody's best interest that a compromise like that suggested last week by Senator Frist, one that would limit Senate debate to 100 hours, emerges.

If I were a betting person, I would say that a compromise will be worked out. The Dems will have their say. The President will get his judges. The system will work. No one will feel humiliated, licking wounds that will later be the motivation for pushing some other nuclear, all-or-nothing button.

Some pro-life Republicans, the kinds who would rather be defeated in a blaze of glory than actually advance their cause, are apt to be disgusted when a compromise is announced. They will accuse Frist, the White House, and other Republicans of being sellouts and of, as they're fond of saying, "lacking cojones." The passage of just a little time may show that another description of them is apt: Smart politicians who stick to their principles and successfully pursue their agendas.