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.
"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."
of course, but would you really want to be "disarmed" if the senate/WH goes back to dems?
"Except the Republicans have never used a filibuster to block nominees before, because IT WOULD BE WRONG. "
Correction: IT WOULD BE POLITICS.
The GOP has a rulebook that apparently tells them that they can't engage in politics, as if it is something beneath them.
Democrats have a rulebook. one rule:
"1. The Ends Justify the Means."