The compromise that U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham helped broker to clear the way for President Bush’s judicial nominees will get its first real test once the White House names a successor to retiring U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

“We’re going to see how well that thing holds together,” said Francis Marion University political scientist Neal Thigpen. “We’re going to see what that thing is made of.

“It could well fold up like a house of cards.”

Because O’Connor is a moderate, her departure gives Bush an opportunity to alter the court, pushing it to the right. Most observers expect him to name a conservative.

Graham is among them.

“I hope he will send over a solid conservative,” said Graham, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will consider the nominee sometime this summer. “To expect him to do otherwise would be unrealistic. I just hope the Senate will treat the nominee decently and with respect.”

Graham predicted O’Connor would go down in history “as one of the most influential justices to have ever served in the Supreme Court.”

U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint of Greenville called O’Connor “a jurist of great integrity, skill and experience.” He commended her for her “noble contribution” to the judicial system.

DeMint hopes Bush names a conservative to the court.

“While some Democrats will attack anyone the president nominates,” DeMint said, “I hope they will give the nominee serious and fair consideration.”

Partisans began arming for a possible confirmation battle months ago, and it was the subtext to the Senate battles over the Democratic minority’s use of the filibuster to block Bush’s lower-court judicial appointments.

Under the compromise agreement signed off by 14 senators — seven Democrats and seven Republicans, including Graham — future nominees to the appeals court and U.S Supreme Court should “only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances.”

However, each Democratic senator holds the discretion to decide when those conditions have been met.

In exchange, seven Republicans said they would vote against GOP Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., if he sought to do away with the filibuster in judicial nominations.

“My hope is that when we consider the first nominee — the first in 11 years— the Senate will conduct itself in a more traditional fashion,” Graham said.

“It will be a real test of the Senate to see if we can rise to the occasion with an up or down vote. A filibuster would be bad for the Senate, bad for the judiciary, and bad for the country.”

Graham has come under fire for his role in the compromise. It was seen as a defeat for Bush and a blow to religious conservatives. They have advocated appointments of more socially conservative judges and put considerable pressure on Frist and Republicans to do away with the filibuster.

Graham has taken it on the chin for reaching across the aisle to work with Democrats.

Graham says that if the Democrats start to filibuster again, he will support Frist and vote to cut off debate.

“I think we’re in for some nasty sledding,” said Clemson University analyst Bruce Ransom.

Moveon.org, a liberal group best known for scathing ads against President Bush in the 2004 campaign, already has joined the fray. The organization will launch a television ad in South Carolina and three other states calling on Bush not to nominate “an extremist who will undermine the rights of individuals and families.

While the ad does not mention Graham, a Moveon spokeswoman said Graham’s centrist attitudes motivated the group to air the piece in South Carolina.

Staff writer Aaron Gould Sheinin contributed to this report. Reach Bandy at (803) 771-8648 or lbandy@thestate.com.