There were four "controversial" nominees who were NOT mentioned in "the deal":
Brett Kavanaugh, William Myers, William Haynes, and Henry Saad.
If I recall correctly, Saad was the only one who was definitely thrown overboard by the Republicans. (That had something to do with some Democrat Senator from Saad's state who had a real bug up his behind and also had some other deal going on.... I don't recall the exact details.)
I believe that the other three are presently in limbo. In any event, the three most controversial of the bunch, Brown, Owen, and Pryor, WERE confirmed quickly and without fuss following announcement of "the deal". Plus, I believe that a few additional lower profile judges have been confirmed.
If I recall correctly, Saad was the only one who was definitely thrown overboard by the Republicans.
He is still in Committee. The only way the nomination can be "definitely thrown overboard" is for the President to withdraw it, or the Senate to return it to the President. Neither of those has happened with Saad. More on Saad below ...
In any event, the three most controversial of the bunch, Brown, Owen, and Pryor, WERE confirmed quickly and without fuss following announcement of "the deal".
Those were/are not the most controversial. They were the ones negotiated to an up or down vote by the gang of 14. Aas you noted, Saad is controversial, and I think Myers is also quite controversial.
Of the Circuit Court nominations remaining, my personal opinion of the "rank order" from least contentious to most likely to trigger the nuclear option goes something like this:
[REID - May 12, 2005] Henry Saad would have been filibustered anyway. He is one of those nominees. All one needs to do is have a Member go upstairs and look at his confidential report from the FBI, and I think we would all agree that there is a problem there.
109th Congress - Page S5030 - May 12, 2005
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1401701/posts?page=1996#1996
"I just knew there was a file, I wanted to see the file and, you know, convince myself that there was nothing in that file that ought to impede his ability to be a federal circuit court judge, which is a lifetime appointment," said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.
Saad Unlikely to See Confirmation Vote - May 29, 2005
At Collins' suggestion, their names [Haynes & Kavanaugh], as well as those of McKeague, Griffin and Neilson, were dropped from the document.
I take the deliberate mention of "no promise to vote for cloture for Saad" as a strong negative signal, both because his name is mentioned (as is Myers) and because, unlike Myers, his nomination was still in committee. It is interesting that the MOU is inconsistent - it assigns Saad to Part I (currently pending) while his nomination was yet to be acted on by the Judiciary Committee.
"This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senates Judiciary Committee."
I think this anomoly is insignificant because I view the MOU as a political tool, not as a contract. Every Senator will use the language of the MOU to personal advantage.