It seems like just yesterday Roll Call was reporting that we’re “very close” to a major breakthrough on judicial nominations. Oh wait, that was yesterday.
A deal crafted in large part by conservative Dem Ben Nelson (Neb.) and very conservative Republican Trent Lott (Miss.) had created a framework that would bypass the nuclear option and end filibusters against four of the seven most controversial Bush nominees. It was reportedly going to save the day, with six senators from each side holding their respective parties from moving forward with their worst-case scenarios.
Twenty four hours later, the “compromise” appears to have been shot down. Here’s a rundown:
* Trent Lott was the first to start backing away from the deal that bears his name. His office issued a statement yesterday afternoon saying that Lott “has not agreed to this deal reported today…. There is no deal.” Lott added a few hours later that it wouldn’t be accurate to say that a deal is close.
* The Republican base went apoplectic in response to the Roll Call article because the “compromise” isn’t good enough for them — three right-wing judicial nominees would be left behind and Dems would maintain the ability to filibuster.
* Judiciary Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), whom I had assumed was part of the Nelson-Lott negotiations, expressed misgivings about the deal, saying any arrangement amounting to a “quid pro quo” would confirm public cynicism about Washington deals made “behind closed doors.”
* Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said the White House doesn’t like the “compromise” either. “Why would we justify throwing some nominees overboard and confirming a handful of others?” Cornyn asked reporters. He added, “I don’t think he (Bush) is going to be part of any smarmy political deal.”
Is it fair to say the Nelson-Lott deal is dead? It sure looks that way.