Some good points that I and others have tried to underscore are confirmed here:
Added Nelson: "It's not a contract that's enforceable. It's a mutual agreement that is self-enforcing."
Some have spoken of it erroneously as such a contract. It is not and it is exactly as Graham and DeWine in particular have stated
Some here called them liars. Well, here's Nelson the dem confirming what they said.
More:
Ironically, though, progress slowed 10 days ago when Byrd and Warner proposed using the document to encourage Bush to consult more widely in the future with the Senate on judicial nominees.
So, while the subject was raised, as I certainly had no doubt it had, my and others' observation that it was not some kind of requirement (absurd!) is evidenced here to be not supported by the participants anywhere near unanimously. Likely a very few of the 14 had some grandiose ideas about this topic but on its face it was ridiculous to act like it was set in stone as some have acted.
Sen. Mike DeWine (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, stepped in last weekend, helping narrow the language so it did not impinge on presidential prerogatives.
So this is more evidence that DeWine's participation was, if an agreement was being worked on, to make it the best possible one for the WH and yet he's the one who gets heaped with scorn and threats of retaliation.
And there is evidence of Graham's role to save the option, too. The evidence some here denied:
The draft said Democrats could filibuster only in "extraordinary circumstances" and that Republicans would oppose any rules changes "in light/assuming the spirit and commitments made in this agreement."
"In light" of, a construction credited to Graham, won out.
Everyone should think long and hard what would have happened if the CO had been voted on, as planned, and failed. It is still there and that's the bottom line.