The editorial seems to suggest that given that a deal has been made, the useful thing to do now is less to praise or condemn it than to strengthen/enforce its limits on the judicial filibuster. I wonder what the various commentators who have deplored the filibusters and the “nuclear option” and called for a deal will do if Democrats filibuster a Bush Supreme Court nominee. At that point, will David Brooks and the editors of the Washington Post support a rules change?