The compromise that has averted -- for now -- a bitter Senate showdown over Democrats' longstanding use of a filibuster threat to block judicial appointments is drawing predictable criticism from some conservatives who discern a failure of nerve by Republican lawmakers. Yet because of the deal struck Monday night by 14 senators, seven from each party, three judges who were blocked by that threat will now get up-or-down votes.

As Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in a conference call Tuesday, despite partisan calls for the GOP to use its 55-seat majority to change Senate rules and eliminate that filibuster tactic on judgeships, the outcome of such an attempt was far from certain. Several Republican senators were not necessarily on board for the so-called "nuclear option."

Sen. Graham, who was one of seven GOP senators to broker the compromise, noted: "If we had pulled the trigger and there was no bullet," President Bush's future judicial appointments, including potential Supreme Court nominees, would be left in a "weakened position." Even if the GOP had prevailed by a narrow margin, perhaps with Vice President Dick Cheney casting the deciding vote, the acrimonious fallout would have undermined not just judicial confirmations, but Social Security reform, energy policy and other critical issues requiring bipartisan solutions from the Senate.

That doesn't mean Sen. Graham wouldn't have voted -- and won't vote in the future -- to scrap the filibuster if that were the only way to advance the president's judicial appointments.

But an examination of this compromise says that it does advance that cause. The seven Democrats agreed to resort to the filibuster on judicial nominations only in "extraordinary circumstances." Sen. Graham pointed out that because those Democrats have agreed to up-or-down votes on the pending nominations of Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William H. Pryor for appeals-court seats, they have, in effect, conceded that none of those three would represent an "extraordinary circumstance." And, as Sen. Graham pointed out: "All three are solid conservatives."

Meanwhile, Sen. Graham said he expects the two judicial nominations that were excluded from the up-or-down vote agreement to "be disposed of in the normal process -- not the filibuster." He implied that Democrats won't resort to the filibuster in those two instances because the Republicans don't have the votes for confirmation.

It is Sen. Graham's argument that the compromise, in effect, "represents an opportunity to start over with judges." If the Democrats live by the agreement, all new nominees should get an up-or-down vote. If they renege, the Republicans will be free to exercise the "nuclear option" and, in doing so, can rightly claim the moral high ground.

While many Democrats clearly will be aiming at any conservative judge nominated by the president to the Supreme Court, they'll have to prove their objections rise to the level of an "extraordinary circumstance." We believe Sen. Graham will help ensure that it would be an extraordinarily hard case to make.

Sen. Graham told us several months ago that he feared the Senate would enter "the darkest chapter in its history" if the filibuster issue weren't resolved. He has been among those working in the ensuing months for new ground rules that would allow the body to start afresh. That means where judgeships are concerned, no more blind, partisan obstructionism.