Anybody with more historical knowledge know if this has ever been done before?

I believe this type of “agreement” has been made many times, although not in so many words.

And is there a chance that in two years, McConnell just laughs it off and uses it anyway?

The US Constitution in Article 1, Section 5 gives the majority of the US Senate, not a supermajority, the power to set its own rules. No “agreement” between Reid and McConnell can liquidate a Constutitional Right of the majority of the Senate to change old rules or establish new rules. Thus, Rule 5, which attempts to bind future Senates to the old rules, would not hold up against a desire by a Senate majority to change Senate rules, the 2/3rds cloture requirement in Rule 5 notwithstanding.

This is what Majority Leader Robert Byrd and the majority of the Senate did several times from 1977 through 1987. They used the Constitutional Option to “interpret” Senate rules without actually changing the text of them.

This is why it is a mistake for conservatives to view the filibuster as something of higher importance than enacting the conservative agenda.

I personally hope that (a) the Republicans win the White House, the majority of the US House and the majority of the US Senate in the 2012 elections and (b) that the Republican Senate majority uses the Constitutional Option to nullify the Democrats’ option of filibustering conservative judicial nominees and conservative legislation.

I would like to see the cloture requirement for Rule 22 reduced to 50 votes on a 2nd cloture vote (while retaining 60 votes on initial cloture votes).

Wait a minute.

The Left never sees their judicial nominees blocked by the filibuster.

Why do conservatives continue to place a higher priority on maintaining the filibuster than making sure the federal courts become more constitutionalist and more conservative?

By retaining the filibuster, we could end with a situation where a Republican president is forced to replace Scalia with a temporary, recess appointment. Then, when the next Democrat is elected, they could choose the permanent replacement and move the US Supreme Court further to the Left.

Is this really a victory for conservatism?

Clearly the Democrats do not see the 60 vote cloture requirement (the filibuster rule) as a barrier to getting liberals confirmed to the federal courts.

But the 60 vote cloture requirement has been a barrier for conservatives getting to the federal courts.

I think before celebrating this Reid-McConnell agreement on the filibuster, all conservatives should consider the implications of this for our federal courts, including the US Supreme Court.

The 60 vote requirement might make it impossible to turn this country around, even if the Republicans sweep the elections in 2012, if they fall short of 60 in the Senate. And 60 in the Senate would require a net gain of 13 US Senate seats. Not impossible, but probably unlikely. Even during the Reagan wave election of 1980, the GOP gained 12 senate seats.

I’d like to see 60 conservative US Senators.

But realistically, by January 2013 we might have a conservative President and about 55 or 56 Republican US Senators, not all of them conservative.

If Scalia, who turns 77 in 2013, decides to retire and the Democrats decide to filibuster his replacement, you won’t demand that the Republicans use the Constitutional Option?

Remember, in 2005-2006 many Republicans threatened to use the Constitutional Option if the Democrat minority filibustered John Roberts or Samuel Alito.

Announcing to the Democrats that we will never use the Constitutional Option to bypass the Democrats’ filibusters is really an open invitation to the Left to block conservative nominees.

Notice, however, that liberal judicial nominees get confirmed, despite the filibuster.

The Left loves the filibuster rule. That’s why Reid wants to retain it. The filibuster rule will allow the Left to eventually win complete control over the federal courts.

Unelected Leftist striking down conservative legislation as unconstitutional. No wonder the Democrats were not in a hurry to change the filibsuter rule.

The filibuster rule benefits the Left.

There are those times when the 60 vote cloture requirement gets in the way of the Left’s agenda.

That’s when the Left uses the Byrd option. The Byrd option is when a simple majority of the Senate creates a new Senate Precedent that contradicts the written Standing Rules of the Senate.

Byrd did this 4 times during his 1977-1987 tenure as Senate Majority Leader.

The Democrats didn’t let the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts in January 2010 stop them from passing Obama-care.

But Republicans continue to believe that simple-majority rule is a bad idea.

This creates a “heads the liberals win; tails the conservatives lose” situation.

This explains why entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP get passed by the Senate. But repeal of these programs never happens.

The result? Well, you are seeing it right now. The United States is nearly bankrupt.

But wasn’t the 60 vote filibuster rule supposed to prevent the advance of socialism in America?

You can keep your fantasy about electing 41 conservatives who have the guts to filibuster Leftist legislation and Leftist judicial nominees.

But while you indulge in that fantasy, the nation continues to drift and lurch to the Left.

Under Lefty presidents like Clinton and Obama, liberal judicial nominees get confirmed to the federal courts.

Under GOP presidents like George W Bus, conservative judicial nominees like Miguel Estrada and Carolyn Kuhl get defeated by the filibuster.

Under Lefty presidents Congress enacts Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac.

Under GOP presidents Democrat filibusters prevent conservative legislation from passing.

What a deal if you are a Lefty.