We’re still in the long weekend of Sandra Day O’Conner’s retirement, and already the so-called compromise is dead, according to some eager reporters.

In the Washington Post, Charles Babbington and Susan Schmidt write that Democrats are “in a bind":

Democrats’ hopes of blocking a staunchly conservative Supreme Court nominee on ideological grounds could be seriously undermined by the six-week-old bipartisan deal on judicial nominees, key senators said yesterday. …

The pact, signed by seven Democrats and seven Republicans, says a judicial nominee will be filibustered only under “extraordinary circumstances.” Key members of the group said yesterday that a nominee’s philosophical views cannot amount to “extraordinary circumstances” and that therefore a filibuster can be justified only on questions of personal ethics or character. …

Yesterday, key players suggested the seven Democrats will automatically be in default if they contend a nominee’s ideological views constitute “extraordinary circumstances” that would justify a filibuster.

And so on. Aren’t you curious who these “key senators/ members/ players” are? These mysterious “members” aren’t revealed until paragraph seven of the article. There are two named, and they are no surprise: Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the Gingrich conservative wheeler-dealer extraordinaire, and Ben Nelson (D-NE), pathetically trying to keep his seat in ‘06.

“Based on what we’ve done in the past with Brown, Pryor and Owen,” Graham said, “ideological attacks are not an ‘extraordinary circumstance.’ To me, it would have to be a character problem, an ethics problem, some allegation about the qualifications of the person, not an ideological bent.”

Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), a leader of the seven Democratic signers, largely concurred. Nelson “would agree that ideology is not an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ unless you get to the extreme of either side,” his spokesman, David DiMartino, said in an interview.

Graham’s statement is no surprise — the “compromise” gave a pass to those three extremists (although it rejected two others—go figure!), opening the door to someone suggesting that those three constitute the gold standard. All it takes to establish that dubious claim are two intrepid reporters.

As for Nelson — although I have no confidence in his courage in this matter, it appears that his statement is not the same at all. It’s not “extraordinary,” he says, unless it’s “extreme.” We’re back where we started.

And now for a little math lesson. Forty-five senators attend the Democratic caucus, and there are 55 Republicans. In order to defeat a filibuster, Republicans need 60 votes — i.e., 5 Democrats. Ben Nelson makes 1 Democrat, so they’re still four short. In order to sieze control by fiat using the nuclear option, Republicans need 50 votes and control of the capitol police. Since seven Republicans signed on to the anti-nuclear “compromise,” Bill Frist needs two of them plus all the others. Graham makes one, so they’re still one short — and there are some non-"Gang of 14″ Republicans who are wary of that tactic (such as Arlen Specter). (Just to clarify, Ben Nelson might indeed vote to end a filibuster — but he wouldn’t go for the nuclear option.) So these “key players” aren’t so key after all.

Another interesting fact about this Post article: While these eager reporters go into great depth about what Republicans say “extraordinary circumstances” are, they never mention the second part of the deal — that the president needs to consult with the senate on his selection. An example of consultation by a president who wasn’t looking for a fight would be the way Clinton treated Orrin Hatch, then ranking minority member of Judiciary. (See this account from Hatch’s autobiography, via ThinkProgress.)

That was the front page of the Washington Post. The conservative rag Washington Times has this to say:

Senate Democrats said yesterday that they will demand to know the political views of any nominee President Bush names to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

“I think the number one thing that I am interested in are the nominee’s views,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat and Senate Judiciary Committee member, said yesterday on ABC’s “This Week.”

Such questions will ensure acrimonious confirmation hearings and conservatives have long argued that such questions – political “litmus tests,” they call them – are improper and undermine the independence of the federal judiciary. …

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, defended his 1987 decision to attack then-federal Judge Robert H. Bork based on his political views, including the famous “Robert Bork’s America” speech on the Senate floor. And he said he would do the same thing if Mr. Bush sends an similarly conservative nominee to replace Justice O’Connor.

“When the president sent Robert Bork to the Senate Judiciary Committee for nomination … it was very clear that he was selected primarily because of his judicial philosophy,” Mr. Kennedy said on ABC. “They made it, really, an issue there, and it became the issue before the Judiciary Committee and the country.”

And so on. The trick here is to insert the word “political” every place you describe what Democrats are going to ask the nominee about. Maybe Ted Kennedy wants to know the recipe for muffins — in the parlance of the Moonie Times, those are political muffins! Outrage!

In reality, of course, the question is not about politics. I can guarantee you that whoever the nominee will be, he or she will be a Republican. The question is what they bring in to deciding cases — their judicial philosophy. It’s not about prejudging future cases, but about whether the nominee would rewrite settled law. Leave it to Republican Judiciary chair Arlen Specter to describe the difference (from the Post article):

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) … on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said: “I wouldn’t say, ‘Are you going to uphold Roe?’ But I would ask a nominee . . . ‘When you have a decision which has been in effect for decades, and people have come to rely upon it, what kind of circumstances, how extraordinary must they be’ ” to try to overturn it?

Since some of the president’s potential nominees are quite radical — meaning they subscribe to specific, absolutist view of how to interpret the Constitution, and they wouldn’t hesitate to, for example, strike down labor laws, Social Security, etc. as unconstitutional by their philosophy — it’s quite necessary to inquire about their precious philosophy. It could well determine the future of the country in dramatic ways.

In yesterday’s New York Times, Jeff Rosen explains a few of these diverse “conservativisms” and what to look for in a “conservative” nominee.

Returning to the Washington Times article, at least reporter Charles Hurt saw fit to mention consultation:

As far as consultation is concerned, Mr. Bush appears to be off on the right foot, according to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.

“I’ve advised the president,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I won’t go into the details of the private conversation, but parts of things I’ve said publicly before: Get somebody who will unite the country, not divide the country.”

But on CNN yesterday, Judge Bork said that the president should not aim for political compromise.

“If Bush does that, he will, I think, have neglected his duty,” he said. “His duty is to find somebody who will make a fine judge, not someone who is a compromise candidate with Teddy Kennedy.”

That, along with quotes like this from the “base,” sums up the extent of Bush’s planned consultation: Listen, ignore.

Three eager-beaver reporters, in two conservative newspapers, in one desperate city. It’s going to be a long summer here.