Sen.Chuck Hagel (R-Saudi Arabia) will wait until Crown Prince Abdullah tells him what to do.

McCain and Hagel probably figure their status in the media transcends the need to vote in favor.

They are quite wrong. They will wind up in the same place as Jack Kemp or John Anderson (or where GHWB would have been, had Reagan selected someone else in 1980).

And policy points aside, if Bill Frist wants to run the Senate, he needs to kick them in line. Hard.

Not quite sure I understand all this.

Let 'em filibuster. Then let the GOP reap the rewards in 2006, 2008....

It's merely smart politics.

(Using muscle in legislative maneuvering can often backfire.)

Barry is right. Republicans will be better off to do this the old fashioned way. Pryor, Landreiu, Nelson (fl), Nelson(Ne), Lincoln, Salazar and several others out west will feel as much pressure as the Republicans want to put on them. I don't think Democrats can hold together on this.

Barry:

That is what some people have been saying since 2001. Time to close the debate.

Would LBJ, Richard Russell, Robert Byrd, or even Bob Dole have allowed the paralysis to go on for 5+ years? No. And neither should Frist, not with 55 Senators in the GOP column. Elections mean something, and majorities mean something. After all, if the Senate doesn't work NOW, can we really blame Harry Reid?

I disagree with Barry about this. There is too much of a risk that the political winds could shift by 2006. If they do, and the Republicans are stuck at 55 or fewer seats, and Bush has to negotiate Supreme Court appopintments with the likes of LEahy and Shumer, a large part of the base will find fishing holes in November, 2008.

Eschewing the nucelar option increases the odds that Bush will name a woman and/or minority as his first court appointment, since by allowing the Democrats the right to filibuster, the administation will have to up the price, or at the very least the risk, they would have to face by actually doing it on a high-profile nominee (which would be even more the case if Rhenquist steps down after the current court term and the nomination of his replacment becomes one of the top issues of the mid-term election).

If the nuclear option is used, then Bush is free to nominate a woman and a minority: Janet Rodgers Brown, who is to the right of Clarence Thomas.

The Senate Democrats would have to have stones the size of boulders to filibuster Judge Brown, if the confirmation hearings are held in August or September of 2006, just prior to both the start of the court's new term and the midterm elections. Hard to see the Democratic senators up for re-election in states won by Bush going to the wall to filibuster that nomination, unless they're really anxious to begin that K Street lobbyist career in January of 2007.

Barry: First, the general public just doesn't care about district and appellate judges. If they did, it would have been a huge issue in '04.

Second, the point isn't to use judges to get political office; the point is to use political office to get judges.

let's be realistic here, the senate republicans (in aggregate) have as much courage as a tit mouse. they will never do anything like change the filibuster rules.