• If the cloture vote fails, Frist would direct an inquiry known as a "point of order" to the Senate's presiding officer, who is likely to be Vice President Dick Cheney. In the inquiry, Frist would argue that after extensive debate on a nominee like Owen, filibusters of judicial nominees are out of order.

• Cheney or the presiding officer would presumably rule that Democratic filibusters of nominees are indeed out of order and that only the votes of a simple majority of senators should be required to end debate on a judicial nominee.

• The Democrats would object to the ruling by Cheney or the presiding officer.

• Republicans would move to table -- or set aside -- the Democrat's objection. Tabling the objection would require a simple majority vote and Cheney could cast the tie-breaking vote.

• If the Republicans succeed in tabling the motion, they will have set a new precedent. From that point forward only a simple majority vote will be needed to end debate on judicial nominees. The Senate would then move to a vote on Owen's nomination.

If the compromise measure passes, six Democrats will vote for the cloture motion and it will pass with 61 votes. If Frist then moves for his point of order, six Republicans will vote against it. It will lose, and the right to filibuster will be retained, but only for the duration of the 109th Congress - until 2006.

If the compromise succeeds, there will be up or down votes on the seven judges previously rejected: Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, Idaho lawyer William Myers and Michigan nominees David McKeague, Richard Griffin and Henry Saad. I'm hearing that the compromise calls for only William Myers and Henry Saad to be rejected.