I agree with bringing up the judges for votes, want conservative judges, but I never see this risk discussed. I'm guessing it's the main reason republicans are reluctant to change the rule.
I can shoot down my own point because I don't trust the dems and they would probably change the rule themselves, and the republicans never block their nominees anyway. But still the turnabout risk is a real consideration.
What has stopped them from doing this in the past? Republicans have never filibustered a nominee that had simple majority support, no matter how odious the nominee.
You need to understand that we're not trying to establish some new way of doing business. We're just trying to get back to status quo ante.
How can that last line possibly make any sense, given what you said before it?
To do what you suggest, the Democrats would have to control BOTH the Senate AND the White House.
And, I'd suggest that if the American people ever allow such a thing to come to pass, they deserve exactly the judges they will get. That is the essence of democracy.
Furthermore, I expect that if the Democrats ever did find themselves in such a felicitous situation, they would NEVER allow Republicans to thwart them with a filibuster. The judicial filibuster would be history before you even noticed it was gone, and with less fanfare than a cafeteria lunch.
All the more reason to get as many Constitutionalist judges on the bench RIGHT NOW, while we DO have the Senate and the White House.
Can you think of a better time to do it?
And what makes you think the Rats wouldn't use the nuclear option themselves if needed? That's the biggest hole in the argument about not going nuclear.