The first result of this agreement was a vote on May 24th to end the filibuster of Priscilla Owen’s nomination for the 5th Circuit Courts of Appeals in New Orleans.  The nominations of Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor are also specifically covered in the agreement.  It is great news that these talented candidates are finally getting a confirmation vote in the Senate after years of waiting.  Unfortunately, the agreement gets nebulous after that.  It states that the filibuster will only be used “under extraordinary circumstances” for future judicial nominees. 

What does such a phrase mean?  Certainly, it is in the eye of the beholder.  However, Tony Perkins, the President of the Family Research Council, made an insightful observation about the agreed action on the nominations of Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William Pryor:

”The standard agreed to by the 'Gang of 14' is set by this agreement: none of the nominees named above represents an 'extraordinary circumstance.'  All are well-qualified, indeed superb, jurists.  By acknowledging this fact now, the seven Republican and seven Democratic Senators who have concluded this compromise are setting a standard that must now be followed consistently.  Nominees of the same caliber as Brown, Owen, Pryor - and any others the President may name - should receive up-or-down votes if offered as candidates for any federal court, and particularly the Supreme Court.  If the liberal interest groups abandon this clear standard, we trust and expect that today's agreement will be null and void.”

Senator Bill Frist has indicated that he is willing to take action on the constitutional option to end a filibuster if the Democrats ignore the standard set by this agreement and again filibuster judicial nominees.  The vote to end the filibuster of the Priscilla Owen nomination was 81-18.  If the charges of extremism and unfitness made against Owen had any merit, how did she get an additional 19 Democrats to vote for closure beyond the 7 who worked out the agreement?  These additional votes reveal that the delay of her confirmation was not about her qualifications, but was purely obstruction for political purposes.  Applying this same standard, there is no merit to the objections raised about other Bush judicial nominations that have been held up for 2 to 4 years. 

With insistence that the standard set by these three nominees be applied consistently, other Bush judicial nominees should also receive a confirmation vote.  If not, Democrats need to explain the “extraordinary circumstances” that demonstrate why the candidate does not meet the now established standard.