(Day 1 and Day 2)

Debate continued today in the Senate as members on both sides of the aisle heated up the rhetoric. At least one Senator called for cooler heads to prevail, as CQ Today's Midday Update (free email service) reports:

As Senate Republican leaders prepare to set the clock ticking toward detonation of the “nuclear option” to end filibusters of judicial nominations, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee once again urged caution.

For the second time this week, Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., today called on party leaders from both sides to step back from the anticipated showdown, release their rank-and-file members from party discipline and allow senators to decide for themselves how to vote on each disputed nomination.

But neither Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., nor Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., seemed inclined to take Specter’s advice.

Negotiations continued among a group of senators seeking a way out of the looming confrontation, and Specter hinted they might prevail. If Frist and Reid continue on a collision course toward a parliamentary showdown, he said, “then a small group of senators will take control of the Senate, and construct a deal.”

As Specter moved to the center, his Republican Party showed its unwillingness to compromise on the "nuclear" option. The New York Times's David D. Kirkpatick has the story.

Republican senators moved Friday to end debate and call for a vote on the nomination of Justice Priscilla R. Owen to a federal appeals court, starting a four-day countdown to a confrontation over judicial confirmation rules and the constitutional balance of power.

Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, said in a statement that if "no reasonable arrangement" about the nomination of Justice Owen and other judicial appointees is reached, he will call for a majority vote on Tuesday that would end the requirement for 60 votes to close debate on nominations to appeals courts and the Supreme Court.

Kirkpatrick passes on another piece of useful information: Hthe Democrats are getting closer to their goal of six Republican defectors.

It remains unknown whether Dr. Frist has the 50 votes needed to pass the Republican plan to change the rules and end judicial filibusters, and aides to the leaders of both parties said Friday that some deal was still possible. Mr. Reid told journalists Friday that four Republicans had agreed to oppose the rule change, just two short of the number needed to block it. Negotiators expect to talk by phone over the weekend, but no meetings are scheduled until Monday. [emphasis added]

As the Republicans continue to move forward with the "nuclear" option, new polling seems to indicate that the American public is not entirely on board with the Republican move. The AP's Will Lester has the scoop.

More than three-quarters of Americans say the Senate should aggressively examine federal judicial nominees and not just approve them because they are the president's choices.

That's one of the few aspects of this divisive issue that gets widespread agreement, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Friday.

[...]

The poll found 78 percent believe the Senate should take an "assertive role" examining judicial nominees rather than just give the president the benefit of the doubt. There were majorities among each political affiliation — Democrats, Republicans and independents. [the rest of the polling data here]

To wrap up, The Economist writes on the significance and possible consequences of the nuclear option.

THIS week the Senate embarked on an epic struggle over the appointment of George Bush's nominees to the federal bench. The struggle will determine not only Mr Bush's ability to reshape the judiciary along more conservative lines, but also the balance of power in Washington, DC, between the Republicans and Democrats and, just possibly, the future of such controversial issues as abortion and the role of religion in public life.

[...]

The stakes could hardly be higher for any of the parties involved in this dispute. If the Democrats lose their power to filibuster Supreme Court nominees, they lose control over the last branch of government where liberal America is reasonably powerful. The Democrats have threatened to retaliate by clogging up Senate business. That could backfire—as Newt Gingrich's Republicans discovered when they shut down the government in 1995.

More broadly, Democrats should be nervous about the filibuster debate for two other reasons. First, they may end up looking like obstructionists. Mr Bush, the “reformer with results”, and his party are already more identified with optimism. Second, the Democrats could end up looking like prisoners of coastal liberal interest groups. They desperately need to expand their geographical appeal: by the final weeks of last year's election, John Kerry had written off half the states.

The risks are even higher for the Republicans—and not just because, as the governing party, they are more likely to get the blame for any unpleasant fallout. To begin with, Mr Frist may not even have the 50 votes he needs. Three Republicans—Mr McCain, Lincoln Chafee and Olympia Snowe—have already signalled that they will vote against any rule change. Several others, including Susan Collins, Arlen Specter, Chuck Hagel and, possibly, John Warner, are wavering.

If they win, Republicans risk being depicted as extremists. The Terri Schiavo affair, where Congress intervened to try to save the life of a brain-damaged woman in Florida, was a public-relations disaster: it raised worries that ideological Republicans are willing to trample over constitutional checks and balances (such as states' rights). Ms Rogers Brown has argued that it is right to apply a “higher law” than the constitution. Such a blatant attack on the church-state divide worries even some conservatives.

On a separate note, we here at Basie! would like to pass on our thoughts and prayers to Arlen Specter as he deals with cancer and related treatment.