Today began the process of the procedure Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) deemed the "nuclear option," an effort to strip the minority of the ability to block judicial nominations. Shailagh Murray and Charles Babington of The Washington Post provide a good wrapup of the story on tomorrow's page 1, focusing on the bipartisan effort to block avert the crisis.

[I]ntense action took place in small groups and closed meetings, as half a dozen GOP centrists, and an equal number of Democrats, tried to close a deal that would defuse the controversy. Aides familiar with the negotiations said they focused on two issues: the fate of seven pending appellate court nominees who were blocked from an up-or-down vote in Bush's first term and the more difficult issue of agreeing on how Democrats would treat the right to filibuster judicial nominees in coming months, when a Supreme Court vacancy might occur.

The "six and six" proposal, as it is called, would obligate Democratic signatories to forswear backing a filibuster against future judicial nominees except in extraordinary circumstances. In return, the six GOP signers would agree to vote against efforts to ban judicial filibusters, the aides said.

Such an arrangement would effectively end the crisis because Democrats would not have the votes they need to prevent votes on the nominees in question. At the same time, Frist would not have the 51 votes he needs to disallow filibusters of judicial nominations.

The New York Times' Carl Hulse waxes historical in his write up of the day's events.

It was a defining moment in the modern-day Senate, recalling another in the Senate's impeachment trial against President Bill Clinton in 1999. In fact, the Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, referred to the impeachment proceedings when he urged a private meeting of the full Senate in the old chamber, where a rare session had been held to try to hash out deep divisions on a similarly difficult subject. The ensuing floor debate did little to settle the acrid division over the Democratic decision to filibuster President Bush's judicial candidates.

[...]

Democrats, alternating in speeches on the Senate floor with their Republican counterparts, were quick to note that Dr. Frist had himself voted to filibuster one judicial nominee in Mr. Clinton's administration, and that Republicans had employed procedural tactics of their own to stall as many as 70 candidates put forward by Mr. Clinton.

Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said that both parties were at fault. "These filibusters are the culmination of a power struggle between Republicans and Democrats as to which party can control the judicial selection process through partisan maneuvering," Mr. Specter said, adding that Democrats saw the filibusters as "payback time" for the way the Clinton nominees were treated.

The Los Angeles Times' Ronald Brownstein serves up some fine analysis of the showdown in tomorrow's paper.

Both political parties opened the historic showdown over judicial nominations that began Wednesday in a weakened position, facing low approval ratings for their performance in Congress that compound the political risks involved.

Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., set the confrontation in motion by formally beginning debate on the nomination Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen the federal bench. Frist has vowed that unless Democrats permit up-or-down consideration of President Bush's nominees, Republicans will force a vote to ban the use of the filibuster to block judicial confirmations, probably as soon as next week.

Few strategists in either party expect the specific arguments over the GOP's bid to thwart Senate filibusters to sway many voters in the 2006 elections. But many analysts believe the conflict could increase and solidify the public antagonism toward Washington surfacing in polls -- especially if the dispute, as is likely, deepens Capitol Hill's partisan acrimony and impedes action on problems more tangible to voters, from gas prices to Social Security.

The key political question is whether the public disenchantment would hurt the parties equally or the GOP more, since it holds the majority and is seeking the rule change on judges.

Against this backdrop, Richard W. Stevenson, writing for The New York Times, notes the intense -- yet behind the scenes -- lobbying effort of the Bush administration.

At the White House, the official line on the fight over ending filibusters of judicial nominees is that it is a matter for the Senate to decide.

But behind the scenes, the White House, directly and through its allies, is playing an active role in keeping up the pressure on the Senate to assure that President Bush's nominees have up-or-down confirmation votes, Republicans involved in the effort said.

So far, administration and Congressional aides said, the White House has avoided any strong-arm lobbying of Republican senators to end the use of filibusters to block nominees to federal judgeships.

The aides said any heavy-handed pressure from the White House could backfire by making the issue seem less about fairness than about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, a topic on which senators of any political stripe might be loath to side with the administration.

And just who are the targets of this lobbying effort by Bush, Frist and company? The Hill, noting that "GOP Sens. McCain, Chafee and Snowe openly oppose the nuclear option," pins down six potential defectors.

• Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) -- "[A] late arrival to negotiations, but on Tuesday he joined a Centrist Coalition meeting with Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). He also joined a group in Sen. John Warner's (R-Va.) office."
  
• John Warner (R-Va.) -- "Warner has been extraordinarily tight-lipped about his views over the past weeks, but he let it be known in interviews that he considers himself a 'traditionalist' and was hoping to avert a showdown."
  
• Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) -- "'I have not rendered a decision because I believe I can be most helpful on brokering a compromise by remaining silent,' Specter said. But many believe he will not support the option if it comes to a vote."
  
• Susan Collins (R-Maine) -- "Collins is considered more likely to vote with Frist than her Maine GOP colleague, Sen. Olympia Snowe, who is up for reelection and who has publicly called for a compromise. [...] Collins says she has made up her mind on how she will vote on the nuclear option but is hoping a compromise will be reached."
  
• Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) -- "DeWine has kept his own counsel on the constitutional option. Although he is no maverick, DeWine has been known to go his own way on high-profile issues."
  
• Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) -- One senator whose position is not in doubt is Smith. He has quietly opposed party positions on a constitutional amendment on gay marriage and other issues. But Smith has decided to vote with Frist out of 'a recognition that the system is broken.'"

The Hill fails to note two other key Republican members who are not yet on board with the nuclear option: Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). If only three of these wavering eight Republicans side with the Democrats, Frist's efforts will be killed.

The Senate is still about a week away from holding the actual vote -- the nuclear option -- so America will have to sit back and wait to see how these eight will vote. It's going to be a bumpy ride, but make sure to check in with Basie! for continuing coverage of the politics of judicial nominations and much more.