With the U.S. Senate a mere day away from a “nuclear meltdown,” a gang of fourteen senators stepped in at the eleventh hour to “save” the Senate. On Monday night, the seven Democrats and seven Republicans announced a deal that would require the Democrats to vote to end filibusters on three judicial nominees and only filibuster future nominees under “extraordinary circumstances.” In exchange, Republicans agreed to forgo the “nuclear option” — a rule change that would eliminate senators’ abilities to filibuster judicial nominations.

The press conference was filled with bipartisan hand-shaking, back-patting and self-congratulatory speeches. White-haired Senator Byrd, a Democrat from West Virginia, did not hesitate to compare himself to Benjamin Franklin. Using the words of the founding father, Byrd claimed that “we have kept the Republic,” and added “thank ‘Gawd;’ thank ‘Gawd’ for this moment and these colleagues of mine.”

Senator Olympia Snowe, a Republican from Maine, was no less nostalgic. She claimed that their deal is “the essence of what our founding fathers designed” and “reflects the better traditions of the Senate, and that is comity, cooperation and collaboration.”

At least I think she said “comity.” The closed-caption typist thought she said “comedy,” which may be closer to the truth. The two-hundred-plus years of Senate history have never been marked by comity, despite the ubiquitous claim that the Senate is now more polarized than ever.

Have we forgotten the infamous caning incident, when anti-slavery Senator Sumner was bludgeoned into unconsciousness by a pro-slavery Southern representative? Or the intense partisanship that accompanied Senator McCarthy’s anti-communist crusade? Or the repeated filibusters of civil rights legislation by Southern Democrats, the last of which extended debate to 57 days before two-thirds of senators could be mustered to end the obstruction?

Filibuster history has not been without comic relief, however. Senator Huey Long’s 15-hour filibuster of New Deal legislation in 1935 included recitations of recipes for fried oysters and Roquefort dressing. In 1992, Senator Alfonse D’Amato, angered by the lack of favoritism shown to a small typewriter company in his home state, held up a tax bill for 15 hours by reading names from a phone book and singing “South of the Border.”

Despite the dubious value of past filibusters, this week’s Senate deal-brokers can still pat themselves on the back for preserving the institution as designed by the founding fathers — right?

The filibuster is not found in the Constitution; the tradition of extended debate in the Senate originated when an 1806 clean-up of the chamber’s rules deleted — perhaps by accident — the ability of the majority to limit debate. The so-called “nuclear-option” would not have been a cataclysmic change, but the last attempt in a 199-year effort to gradually undo the 1806 rule change.

The senators’ compromise did not save us from extremist judges. The compromise will probably result in their confirmation.

Listen to Senator Byrd’s statement: “We have kept the republic … We have signed this document in the interest of the U.S. Senate.” They didn’t sign in the interest of the American people or the judiciary; they did in the interest of the United States Senate. The signatories of the compromise “saved” the Senate from becoming the raucous rabble that is the House of Representatives.

Don’t get me wrong: I actually like the filibuster — even if it is just institutionalized foot-dragging — because it usually works to the detriment of its practitioners. Its modification, however, is not an occasion to fear; its preservation is not necessarily an occasion to rejoice. It’s a strange political tool that can be used for selfish, noble, or despicable ends, but it is not indispensable.