So now three judges are in, and the Dems will make a big pain in the a** of themselves again when Bush appoints a new Supreme Court Justice. (Extraordinary cicrumstances, ha ha.)

Some things are worth getting outraged over. In this case, what we have is a power grab by the Legislative branch on a deal brokered by "moderate" Republicans that makes the Republican party look as if it were willing to surrender its princip...

They've said it best: Michelle Malkin, Captain's Quarters (also here), Outside the Beltway (also here), La Shawn Barber, WizBang, Blogs...

I assume that the Dems didn't feel confident they had the votes; it would be REALLY bad if they had 'em but folded anyway. Though quite typical.

Sigh. Of Brown, Owen & Pryor, Brown's the only really over-the-top one. (The Dems go on about "Owen took contributions from litigants before her," evidently *completely* out of touch with the necessities of elected state judges.) Maybe the Dems will work to get a floor vote against her, which at least would get us back to the substance of these nominations, not a procedural diversion.

Koolaid drinkers loathe a Republic. Republics mean power-sharing, and debate, and compromise. These are anathema to any true Koolaid drinker, who has no doubts of the purity and superiority of his particular blend.

As we see the first dawn after th...

So it's possible they're doing something right. Chris Bowers at MyDD: My opinion of whether the deal was a victory for Democrats has increased somewhat after looking over the rather astounding reaction from Republican blogs and netroots. He points to...

Bipartisan Agreement in Senate Averts a Showdown on Judges - New York Times:
"WASHINGTON, May 23 - A bipartisan group of 14 senators struck a last-second agreement on Monday that defused - at least for now - a potentially explosive parliamentary show...

In reading around at different blogs it's possible to find plenty of conservatives who support this deal - most notably Bainbridge and Outside the Beltway. Concepts from kicking the can down the road, to preserving this or that option are

Yes indeed, this day was a good one for our nation.

The status quo was changed. The status quo prior to the agreement was that the president could not get an up or down vote on more than one in three appellate court nominations.

Supposedly there's a deal to avoid a showdon on the filibuster:Under the agreement, Democrats would pledge not to filibuster any of Bush's future appeals court or Supreme Court nominees except in

OK, I said I had nothing to say.

Looking around the other blogs and seeing the reaction to the "deal" made in the Senate, I'm a little baffled.

Will someone please explain to me why it's a BAD thing, when the three nominees the Democrats were...