"How about the fact that we had the majority in the Senate and rejected nominees in committee that would have just the same been rejected outright on the floor?"
good point. one would have to compare '95-'96 (repub. maj.) years with '01-'02 (dem. maj.) sessions.
that said, retiring the filibuster may be a double-edged sword. if the unthinkable happens and the senate goes back to dems in '06 (out of power party gains are typical midterm), the retaliation could get ugly. and god knows what havoc on our judicial system happens if it's hitlery in '08.
Except the Republicans have never used a filibuster to block nominees before, because IT WOULD BE WRONG. So we let a bunch of really liberal judges onto the bench.
Back when Clinton was president the republicans wouldn't support filibusters, and the democrats gave long-winded speeches about how bad filibusters were for judges.
Now that Bush is president the republicans won't support filibusters, and the democrats give long-winded speeches about the grand history and tradition of filibusters for judges.
That's what I like about democrats, their dogged consistancy. Meaning of course they are consistantly hypocritical.