While some still react to democrat posturing and spinning with resignation, others see a successful string of appellate court placements as how the filibuster ‘deal’ was good for the GOP and bad for the dems. Remember, the dems have not yet stopped any nominee – even Saad and Myers, though this still remains to be seen.

Todd Lindberg in the Washington Times outlines the more positive perspective on Bush’s judicial nominees:

It is beginning to dawn on Democrats that the compromise in the Senate that averted the “nuclear option” over judges was not the victory they thought it was. Republicans, meanwhile, are beginning to come to termswithwhatit means to get not half a loaf, but I’d say three-quarters to seven-eighths, rather than the whole.
…
The problem is the psychological blow that comes when one of them — or three of them! — at last makes it through. One has, after all, talked oneself into the proposition that these characters are unfit for the federal bench, grossly out of the mainstream, extremist in their views of the Constitution, etc. Yet one has failed, at the end of the day, to stop them — with who knows what dire consequences. There is a term for this state of affairs: defeat.

Lindberg goes on to note that these confirmations are establishing what are not extreme circumstance as defined in the Gang of 14’s deal:

But this suggests that future nominees will have to be portrayed as even more “extreme” than these three in order to qualify as “extraordinary.” This, in turn, suggests that Mr. Bush has pretty much carte blanche to appoint solidly conservative judges, so long as they are qualified. Oh, of course, one or two might get bounced into limbo, perhaps for cause, perhaps at random. But most will get through.
…
Once they have made it through the appellate round, it would be difficult to tag them with the “extraordinary” label. The effort to block by filibuster someone whom you had previously agreed should not be blocked by filibuster would be very risky politically, especially with the stakes as high as they are for Supreme Court nominations.
…
The third benchmark pertains to the case of Judge Pryor: His recess appointment did not bar him from eventual confirmation. The Senate weakened its institutional hand vis-a-vis the White House by letting a recess appointment become permanent.

Yes, the aftermath of the deal is more important than all those dire predictions.