If you start with the concept that what the Dems are doing (filibustering judicial nominees) goes against the Constitution (advise and consent only) and 214 years of Senate tradition then all of these attempts at compromise by McCain and other GOPers are just attempts to cave in for no reason.

Breaking the Dems on the judicial issue will be a defining item for GOP Prez nominees in '08 - looks like McCain doesn't get that or figures he make up for the loss in GOP support by adding Dem support.

It is pathetic that people like McCain, Hagel, Chafee, Snowe, and Collins are so eager to compromise with the forces of dimness, when it is impossible to imagine any of them staging a pseudo-filibuster against a Democratic nominee for extreme leftism. Why help the liberals win by cloning the 9th Circuit throughout the country, when they can't win at most polling places?

AWW:

Yes, but you need to start there to get to that conclusion and it's easy enough not to.

I agree with...McC......(the words won't come out of my mouth). The filibuster rule relates to the constitution in no way, shape or form. It's a voluntary agreement that relates to protecting a minority of states from the mob rule of the majority. If the filibuster is voided for judicial nominees, then it will eventually (and in short order) be dropped for all issues. There has never been any doubt that the filibuster applies to judicial nominees. Republicans have prevented Clinton nominees from getting floor votes (quite rightly I think) and that action certainly led to the present filibuster by Democrats. The "threat" of filibuster by Republicans tended to temper the liberal enthusiasm for even more radical Democratic judges. Republicans, especially conservative Republicans, should be protective of the filibuster. If there should be any regrets, it should be that in the past conservatives have been too reluctant to filibuster Democratic judicial nominees. All delaying tactics, on the floor or in committee stem from the threat of the filibuster.

To sum it up I think the removal of this filibuster rule is extremely short-sighted on the part of Republicans. Up until now Democrats have respected the filibuster rule, during their almost thirty year control of the Senate, but you can kiss that goodbye as soon as they get back in the majority.

H-man - the problem is that the Dems are claiming that the constitution specifically says you need 60 votes for judges (Reid said it again yesterday).

51 votes are needed to approve judges. All the other stuff (bottling up in committee, blue slips, etc) are games the minority side plays to prevent losing. Elections matter - if you want to be able to put your kind of people in place you need to win elections.

And I don't buy the "we need to keep the rules because when the Dems are in the majority we will need them". The Dems started this and there is no doubt in my mind that Byrd or some other Dem would come up with a rule that nominees only need 10 votes to get approved and the MSM would gladly agree.

I think McCain will vote to change the rule, despite what he said on 'Hardball'. The issue has become so important for the base that he will have to follow the party. And after all, it's in his nature to sway with the wind, no? Just ask Charlie Keating or the editorial writers at the NYT.

Frist needs to run the Senate, whether he is running for President or not. If no nominee of Bush's is going to be approved without the rule change, then it has to happen. And the President should make Estrada or Brown his first choice to replace Rehnquist.

The filibuster should be abolished for all purposes. So should the "holds" and "blue slips" and similar ways for even one senator to hold up nominations. The House functions without all this crap.

"mob rule of the majority"? So, 59 or even 51 duly elected senators is a mob?

Plus, the Senate after direct elections no longer represents states, it is merely organized on a state basis.

The Filibuster is non-constitutional: It's not cited anywhere in the text, but exists because the Constitution gives House and Senate the right to set their own rules. And because the Constitution gives the task of setting House and Senate rules to those bodies, the Dems aren't talking about suing to make the Courts force the House and Senate to keep the filibuster.

As for tradition: give me a break! We supposedly have a "living" Constitution, but debating rules within the Senate are Sacred, involate, and unchangeable? "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is ours" is the Democratic mantra. About time for the Republicans to say "No" and bring the whole house of cards crashing down...

I sent a Senator back to D.C. to VOTE on my behalf, not cower at the "threat" of a filibuster from the rapidly shrinking Minority. GOP Senators have two choices here: force the Dems to make idiots of themselves filibustering (which, frankly, would be an absolute delight to see FoxNews carry wall to wall) or establish, once and for all, that judges who make it out of comittee deserve an up/down vote on the floor, period. Entertaining any other idea or option is a losing proposition that does nothing but empower the idiots on the other side of the aisle.