[Spok]

Repubs may have to "go nuclear."

Let's hope they're up to it.

[BJungNan]

Repubs may have to "go nuclear."

Let's hope they're up to it.

Don't bet on it.

[TheBigB]

But, but, but...that might cause the NY TIMES to write nasty articles tut-tutting about the GOP's "partisanship" and give Linc Chafee the vapors. Plus, it might antagonize Sen. Hatch's "good friend", Senator Kennedy

[RetiredArmy]

The republicans will still be standing around a year from now trying to figure out what to do. A self inflicted wound of, gee whiz, what do we do now attitudes. They lack the killer instinct to do anything out of fear.

[MplsSteve]

I agree.

Enough of this delaying tactic by the Dems.

Every judicial nominee (regardless of who's in the White House) is entitled to a fair hearing and a straight up or down vote.

Frist should go nuclear if the Dems won't allow a vote!

[jammer]

Repubs may have to "go nuclear."
Let's hope they're up to it.

That sounds attractive, ostensibly. But a cautionary note: had the Republicans gone "nuclear" when they controlled the Senate in the early and mid-80's, we would have HillaryCare today. It was only Phil Gramm whipping the Democrat majority--with the filibuster option--that kept it from being rammed down our throats.

My rule of thumb is that anything (legal, of course) that prevents any deliberative government body from functioning is not only not bad, but a positive good. Another rule of thumb: anything we propose for a short-term solution is going to be used against us in the long-term, so we had better be able to stomach it.

[pointsal]

Unfortunately, the Republicans do NOT have the balls to make the fillabustering Democrats stand and the podium and continue speaking until they pee their pants. What's a good fillabuster without some pain?