I guess I'm the only political junkie in America who neither knows who won or lost in the great judicial compromise of 2005 nor cares. OK, that's not entirely accurate. But as I've said before, judges have only become an issue because we have allowed judicial activism to subvert the bedrock of representative government (that's a fancy way of saying judges have become an unelected force unto themselves that make sweeping decrees based on their own personal feelings while ignoring the clear desires of the people as expressed through referendums and legislation). And while judges do from time to time uphold their important role of safeguarding the minorty or upholding unpopular but necessary principles, all too often it's just a naked power grab for their own viewpoint. So frankly to me the whole fight is over the wrong issue, who gets appoint the tyrants, and not curbing the tryant's power.
Like all agreements with no enforcement power, who wins or loses depends largely on how much each group honors the agreement, and how much real agreement there was. For instance, the agreement is filibuster only in "extreme circumstances"? So what does that mean exactly - in the case of Supreme Court nominees, or in the case of "extreme" nominees with the determination of "extreme" up to who? And what if there is a difference of opinion as to what constitutes extreme circumstances, who adjucates and enforces the agreement? The merry band of 14 senators? On balance I'd say the Republicans came out on top as they have judges in hand in return for hazy future promises. Even with the lack of spine (or ruthlessness) demonstrated repeatedly by Republican senators historically, they managed to kick the can down the road as far as a showdown the electorate would notice while getting appointees who have languished for years finally approved.
