What's So Horrible About a Filibuster Compromise?

The usually left-leaning editorial pages of The LA Times have come out in support of the so-called nuclear option which will remove the filibuster for judicial nominees. To make their argument, The LA Times takes a shot at Centrists:

We usually like it when centrist senators like John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) try to galvanize the sensible center on behalf of some compromise, but we sincerely hope they fail in their attempt to preserve the Senate's filibuster. Count this page on the side of conservative social activists who are pushing Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to "nuke" the filibuster.

The filibuster is an inherently reactionary instrument most famously used to block civil rights legislation for a generation…

Frist is on the verge of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. He plans to bring the nomination of Priscilla R. Owen, a Texas Supreme Court justice, before the full Senate today. Democrats have blocked her nomination in the past, and Frist is now threatening to force a change in rules to prohibit filibusters of judicial nominees. That would be a great triumph for the American people. It would be an even greater triumph if the Senate were to destroy the filibuster altogether.

I often wonder, had the filibuster never been gloriously immortalized in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, would so many people care about its demise? I don’t know, but I do know that The Times is making a bizarre argument. What is wrong with finding a compromise on this issue?

As we’ve said before, the nominees deserve a chance at an up-or-down vote and the Democrats deserve to filibuster…a REAL filibuster. But given that this group of Senators seems disinclined to sleep on cots in the cloak room, a compromise that preserves the filibuster and results in most of the nominees getting a vote is a very reasonable solution.