It has been the tradition of the Senate not to filibuster judicial appointments. Save for a 1968 filibuster of chief justice nominee Abe Fortas, which the Washington Post called "precedent-shattering," the Senate has allowed up-or-down votes on judicial nominees who made it out of committee. The Democrats abandoned that practice during George W. Bush's first term, filibustering ten of the president's appeal's court nominees thus far.

The filibuster has also been a Senate tradition. The upper chamber has allowed unlimited debate since its inception, instituting checks upon the practice less than a century ago through the introduction of cloture. The Republicans threaten to break with tradition, changing Senate rules to prevent filibusters blocking judicial nominees.

Couldn't the ominous tag, "The Nuclear Option," be more readily applied to the Democrats filibustering judicial nominees than to the Republicans stopping the filibustering of judicial nominees? After all, if we must label the proposed Republican procedural tactic anything, shouldn't we just call it, "The Nuculer Option," which more accurately represents the pronunciation for most members of the Grand Old Party?

Recognize this reality: removing the option to filibuster judicial nominees is a rare senatorial action only because filibustering judicial nominees has so seldom been attempted. Conceding that both actions violate the traditions of that sometimes august body, honest people also admit that the innovative Republican measure comes in response to the even more innovative Democratic obstruction. In other words, the former reaction is born of the latter action. Killing the chicken is the best way to ensure we don't get the bad egg.

Nuclear option is melodramatic language considering what is being considered. A group of senators stabbing the President and seizing control of the government: that is worthy of the name "nuclear option." And I am not suggesting Bush is a caesar.
I am surprised that the defenders of filibuster do not point to some episode where its use was instrumental in putting the Senate on the right course. Aside from creating a dramatic moment in one of my favorite political movies, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," I don't know of any instance where its implementation was positive. I do know of some great negatives.

The filibuster does not play a role as a check on the President. It is the Senate itself that is being restrained. Because the Senate is stopped, the proper work of government is piling up. The filibuster is a check on the Senate itself as it keeps the Senate from wielding its power and fulfilling its function. Does the Senate want to retain this check upon itself? The defenders of filibuster seem mostly concerned with maintaining tradition, that and only approving judges who reason like Justice Kennedy.

Perhaps if the Dems filibuster long enough, the citizens of the country will realize that they are an unnecessary burden. They certainly are not accomplishing any work.

Since when should conservatives complain about an instituional that "restrains the Senate", or complain that "the proper work of government is piling up." Personally, I think something that "keeps the Senate from wielding its power and fulfilling its function" is a usually good thing.

It has become one of the standard Democratic party talking points that GW Bush's judicial nominees are "extremists." Well then if they are extremists there is no reason to filibuster. After all, if they are extremists they would never get an up or down vote in their favor anyway. Given the Democrats determination to filibuster these judicial nominees, it leads me to conclude that these judicial nominees are not really extremists.

I agree. The Senate Republicans would simply be countering one break with tradition by another. And the judges are certainly worth it.

The only other alternative I'd accept is to make the Democrats employ a real filibuster. Halt all other Senate business and hold the Senate in session around the clock for as long as it takes.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid the Republicans don't have the fortitude to do either.

As is usual, the terms in play have been chosen to make the Republicans sound worse than they are. They aren't against filibusters, but endless filibusters. And Brad's right - if you really want to do it right, you get up and talk for fifty straight hours. (Robert Byrd has already done this by accident a few times.)

For Democrats, the current tactic is not to further the debate but forestall it indefinitely. The only goal they have with pseudo-bustering these nominees is to prevent the whole Senate from voting up-or-down - because they know the nominees will be confirmed. Otherwise they'd hasten the vote and kill the nominations, just as they did when Leahy chaired the Judiciary Committee.

Short,
I'm not enough of a cynic to want to play procedural games to limit government. I don't like politicians and I look on government with a jaundiced eye, but at the end of the day, politics plays a small role in my life. I am happy to win a few and lose a few if the constitution is allowed to play itself out in a legitimate way. Hence, let the Senate be the Senate. We need more judges to make for speedier trials.

The real argument is simple : this Democratic party is capable of doing virtually anything to empower their causes.When the situation is reversedc they are certainly going to imposed the "nuclear option" to get their Supreme Court packed.The Democrats have shown that all bets are off,total hipocracy is acceptable and for them the ends justify the means.The Republicans should just argue "they can't be trusted anymore on anything so we have to do this."