No deal yet on judicial nominees

WASHINGTON -- Talks aimed at averting a showdown over judicial nominations remained snagged late yesterday primarily over the future of the Supreme Court, with Republicans pushing for a guaranteed vote for future nominees for the high court and Democrats remaining committed to the right to block a nomination through extended debate if they deem it necessary.

The Supreme Court hang-up seems to be the biggest obstacle to a negotiated settlement that would avoid a move by Republicans to banish the practice of extending debate through filibusters of judicial nominees, according to senators and aides involved in the discussions.

About a dozen moderate Democratic and Republican senators continued to meet throughout the day in search of a compromise, as their colleagues in both parties traded partisan barbs and procedural maneuvers during a second day of debate on the Senate floor.

Both sides delivered soaring speeches and held a series of news conferences, as they sought to make their case in advance of a final vote on filibusters that could occur in the middle of next week. But while the debate was officially on two of President Bush's nominees for circuit court judgeships, the fate of the Supreme Court dominated the discussions.

''This whole debate, for me, is about the Supreme Court," said Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is among the lawmakers seeking a compromise.

Many Republicans are fearful that Democrats will have enough clout to block a conservative Supreme Court nominee if the filibuster rule is not changed, while Democrats are unwilling to agree to a compromise that would guarantee an up-or-down vote on any Bush nominee, no matter how conservative.

Late yesterday afternoon, senators held a private meeting in the office of Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, where they worked up another draft of a settlement proposal.

''There's some possibility we'll be able to get this," Senator Ken Salazar, Democrat of Colorado, said as he left McCain's office. Added Senator John Warner, Republican of Virginia: ''Whenever redrafting takes place, I think it's progress."

After Democrats used filibusters to block 10 of Bush's 218 judicial nominees in his first term, Senate majority leader Bill Frist vowed to outlaw the practice, which he contends Democrats have taken to an unprecedented level. Frist, a Tennessee Republican, sent word to senators yesterday to expect an all-night session on Monday, and said he would schedule a vote to close off debate on judges Tuesday -- a move that could set up a vote later in the week on changing the rules for judicial confirmations.

The proposal would have six Republicans -- enough to deprive Frist of a majority -- commit to preserving the existing Senate rules, which allow senators to use filibusters to block votes unless 60 senators vote to end them.

In exchange, six Democrats would support votes for at least five of the eight current nominees Democrats have threatened to hold up, and promise to avoid future filibusters except in ''extraordinary circumstances."

Democrats have promised to shut down most Senate business if the Republicans change the rules to prevent filibusters. Yesterday, Democrats invoked an arcane Senate rule for the second straight day to stop most committee meetings from taking place while the Senate was in session.

But Republican negotiators are having trouble attracting the requisite number of senators on their side to support a compromise. Senate aides said several Republicans are looking for more explicit language that would allow them to back out of a deal if Democrats decide to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. Democrats, for their part, want a guarantee of no attempts to ban filibusters for the remainder of the 2005-2006 congressional session.

With at least one Supreme Court vacancy likely to arise in the coming months, conservative groups and Frist are insisting that no deal leave the door open for a Bush nominee to be defeated through a filibuster. Seven freshman GOP senators served notice that they will not stand for an agreement that does not guarantee yes-or-no votes for future nominees, although they conceded that there is little they may be able to do to stop such a deal.

''Unless you have an elimination of filibusters for Supreme Court judges, you're not going to have an agreement," said Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma. ''They could come to any agreement you want, but the vast majority of [Republican] votes are not going to be with them."

Susan Milligan of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Material from the Associated Press also was used.