Monday night’s agreement on the the years-long stalemate over judicial nominations seems to be a solution &045; but for how long?

Both sides claimed some measure of victory after seven Democrats and seven Republicans &045; all centrists &045; hammered out an eleventh-hour agreement on a handful of President Bush’s judicial nominees, some of whom have waited four years for a confirmation vote.

But by Tuesday afternoon, Majority Leader Bill Frist and his Democratic counterpart Harry Reid were already disagreeing about whether the so-called &uot;nuclear option&uot; &045; the elimination of the right to filibuster &045; was still on the table.

The agreement hammered out Monday &045; while apparently quite vague by the next day &045; makes sense. Democrats needed to allow for up-or-down votes on these long-suffering nominees, and Republicans simply cannot get rid of the filibuster (perhaps their memory is quite short; they blocked six times as many of President Clinton’s judicial nominees).

But with the possibility of a Supreme Court nomination battle soon, we have not seen nearly the end of this issue.

Bush won’t nominate a centrist for the Supreme Court, especially if that person is to take the place of Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

If we thought the battle over these nominees was difficult, we’re in for a long war when it comes to the Supreme Court.

So we have to wonder &045; how long can the center &045; or the centrists &045; hold?