"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?
"but would you really want to be "disarmed" if the senate/WH goes back to dems?"
Actually, yes. The consequences of elections would be much bolder then.
"of course, but would you really want to be "disarmed" if the senate/WH goes back to dems?"
Silly argument ... when the dems become the majority - of COURSE they will demand we not filibuster their judges - WHETHER WE MAKE THE SAME DEMAND OR NOT. And in fact, the history is that we did NOT use that particular power, as too 'political', 'wrong' and unfair to a President's nominees.
Dems never had those qualms when power is at stake.
You are foolishly thinking that if the GOP were consistent, the Dems would follow. Never happened; never will happen.
We will be disarmed. If we use the filibuster, the democrats (who again have no consistant principles other than power) won't think twice before "reluctantly" changing the rules due to the petty partisan tactics used by the republicans against eminently qualified candidates for office.
If they hadn't figured out before how to do it, we've certainly told them now.
And the MSM won't ever use the term "nuclear option" against them (of course nobody on their side will be stupid enough to CALL it that).