So...boring...

This was the worst issue ever. I can't understand how ANYone could get passionate about it.

If you're interested, I explore some of why I think people got their panties in a bunch at this URL:
http://sophistpundit.blogspot.com/2005/05/never-trust-party.html

I can't understand how ANYone could get passionate about it.

Well, because it's related to Roe v Wade, for one reason. Liking the status quo, I have no dog in that fight.

I guess. But then they're all being so short-sighted--it's all about getting their way no matter how democratic it is. Now, I believe the Republicans are being just as opportunistic--but at least they have the majority right now and so don't seem quite so undemocratic in what they're saying.

I mean, jesus. The filibuster was practically invented for Southern Racists who wanted to put down civil rights legislation. Is everyone defending it now really think that the ends are way more important than the means, and the long-term implications of using those means?

Actually, the filibuster was effectively "invented" in 1806, and more of it occurred in '92-'93 than the entirety of the 19th century. Yes, Democrats Thurmond and Byrd did use it against civil rights legislation, but the difference here is that, heretofore, it had been relegated to legislation, not judicial nominees. Its use against appelate court nominees, in fact, is unprecedented.
And by "opportunistic" in the GOP's case, I assume you mean the opportunity to exercise an elected majority's right to confirm judges they prefer.
I, too, prefer the status quo with regard to Roe, but, surely you would agree that what is effectively a veto on nominees by the minority party upends democratic ideals?
And "Is [sic] everyone defending it now really think that the ends are way more important than the means, and the long-term implications of using those means?" would seem not to apply to the GOP whose compromise preserved the "means" and the traditional filibuster, but you know, everyone should just take a chill pill, man, it's all cool, dude.

I, too, prefer the status quo with regard to Roe, but, surely you would agree that what is effectively a veto on nominees by the minority party upends democratic ideals?

No, not totally. Checks and balances are about exploiting the system, to some degree, though I think that the Dems have been abusing this loophole.

Which is why the filibuster, and I agree here, was not scrapped by the GOP. "Abusing" is and understatement--traditionally, it is used against legislation. This allows the majority to go back and rewrite said legislation until it satisfies the minority to the degree that they won't filibuster. In the case of judicial nominees, no such reworking, obviously, is possible--they are simply shot down for good.
This debate stems from the simple fact that the Dems refuse to admit they are the minority party. Instead of using the normal means available in politics, e.g. persuade enough of the opposition to vote with you either through debate, coercion, compromise, exchange for future favors, etc., and allowing an up or down vote, the Dems are stemming a democratic vote from the outset. Why not just use these means to make your point? Certainly, there are enough Repubs seeming to lean in their direction (McCain, I'm looking in your direction.)
Instead, they stall debate, and votes, per se.
It boils down to: the American people voted to put a majority GOP Senate in place, implying the conservative agenda is their current preference. The Dems are doing nothing but refusing to accept the electorate's wishes, cynically and obdurately refusing to believe their agenda is not the one that should prevail.
I believe it really is an insult to the voters in a desperate attempt to force their agenda on an electorate that, by the their own vote, declines to accept it.

Disclosure - I am a democrat.

I disagree with the dems on their insistence of the filibuster to block these nominees - however, I think the other party is getting off a little easy here as the whole stem cell issue is FINALLY seeing a bit of light after majority party stalling (for fear of offending the conservatives).

In cases like these (nominees & stem cell), both parties play games and are "cynically and obdurately refusing to believe their agenda is not the one that should prevail", to quote T Marcell above.

I'm with you. I love how Zuniga's bluffing that he's happy these nominees are going to a vote. Right. And on the other side, Hinderaker is hyperventilating like, well, Sully

...& the people screaming to end the filibuster have NO IDEA how credible a threat Hillary is in 2008. Do they want no filibuster against the social engineers she would appoint?

The Republican primaries in 2008 will be a love fest with the Religious Right, just as the Dems had to kiss MoveOn's ass in 2004. But Hillary won't have to kiss anyone's ass, because the Angry Left see her as a Trojan. Let the Republicans run a Santorum or Delay against her & see what happens

But the stem cell issue has been and will continue to be under debate. It was voted on by the House, and although Bush says he will veto any bill that etends research, there are clear mechanisms in place to allow an override.
With judicial nominees, this is not the case. A filibuster effectively kills the nomination, and unlike possible stem cell bills which can be edited or amended to satisy a House majority, judicial nominations go to that big bench in the sky. So the analogue is specious.
Jeff,
I don't believe the GOP will kowtow to the RelRight, but if they do, they deserve to lose, likewise if they run DeLay.
However, when they run Condi, let's indeed, see what happens. And as for Trojans and the Angry Left, I believe we've already been through that with a Clinton.

ps thanks for the Die, Jar-Jar Die link--that felt good.

It's the Primary Death Trap: when there's no incumbent, the candidates HAVE to cater to the extreme. This is what Hill's counting on

In the absence of an issue as clear as the Iraq war, and without an encumbent that's certainly possible, but did you think Gore catered to the extreme Left in 2000?
I agree the GOP's catering to the RRight would be a trap, and one that the MSM would love to jump on, but won't Hill have her own troubles trying to muzzle Howard Dean, and keeping him and the DNC from doing just what you are predicting the Right will do?

T Marcell,

I would direct you here:

http://www.house.gov/castle/pr_04_RepsCastleDeGetteIntroduceStemCellResearchBill.html

for at least one example of a stem cell bill held at bay by the majority party.

Honest question - I thought Bush could resubmit nominees? Perhaps I am way off base here - I thought he had already done this when elected to a 2nd term??

Kyle,
Yes, he is re-submitting Owen and Brown, but only because of the recent deal. Had this compromise not been reached, it would have futile to re-submit (and, I believe is rarely done, otherwise we'd see Robert Bork on the Court), because the opposition would simply repeat the same process that derailed the nominee in the first instance.
And I know the GOP has used various procedural methods to block stem cell bills, but legislation is very different from judicial nominees, least which because of the tradition that had prevailed previously in the Senate, but also because some believe Article III's granted powers have been exceeded and lastly, because legislation can always be altered to please both parties.
So far, no one has proposed altering Janice Rogers Brown.

"I do not support the elimination of the privilege. I say privilege because that is what I believe the filibuster to be. A unique privilege--to be used sparingly and only in those instances when a Member believes the legislation involves the gravest concerns to his or her constituents." Reid (D-NV) 5-Jan-1995

This whole thing got out of control when a group of Senators forgot that the filibuster is a "privilege."

And on the other side, Hinderaker is hyperventilating

And how STUPID is that, considering Priscilla Owen got her vote today, and she was the one considered most "extreme".

What they all seem to ignore is REALITY; that yes, the Dems will probably threaten filibusters of other nominees, but the "extraordinary circumstances" bit raises the bar, and can easily bring back the argument for the nuclear option.
I mean, duh.

It is funny how the left is pretending to celebrate this, considering their (ridiculously shallow, partisan) view of the Bush nominees...

God, I'm tired of people shrieking "catastrophe!!!" over stupid procedural rules. Most Americans could care less over procedural rules, they just want the work to get done in Congress. Too many law geeks and lawyer wannabes in the blogosphere, if you ask me. They're either overthinking it, paranoid, or overestimating the tolerance for Congressional obstruction among the American mainstream.

Time for Karl Rove to re-educate the "brainwashed bloggers," apparently. ;-) They've lost their capacity for rational thought.