Anyway, juggling two blogs, a full-time job and a social life is bound to put quite the strain on my burgeoning coke habit, so for today, I'll let y'all take over. No reason not to use Doug's more plentiful traffic to answer a fairly basic question that's been bugging me about the filibuster issue.
Okay, so the Senate is really built to uphold the rights of the minority; that's why California gets two senators, and so do Rhode Island and Montana. The filibuster is another tool to protect the minority, in that a tyrranical majority can sit around crocheting potholders and writing Star Trek fanfiction for days while the minority party debates an issue into oblivion. It's one of the few options available to make sure that legislation or nomination gets through on merit rather than popularity. Obviously. And people recognize that; recent polling shows that two-thirds of Americans oppose "changing Senate rules to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush's judicial nominees."
So here's the question, and it's a very basic one that's been asked by lots and lots and lots of people and still not answered to my satisfaction: what's up, Republicans? I realize that Bush and his supporters really, really, really want to get his entire slate of nominees through. His entire slate, instead of just the 95 percent who have already been approved. Are the remaining seven judges really worth throwing out 200 years of Senate precedent and rolling over on the will of the people? Are Senate Republicans really so short-sighted that they can't imagine a future where they'd be in the minority and need the filibuster option to block legislation that they object to? And does the average, popcorn-eating, American Idol-watching, football-loving conservative really support Frist's decision to go nuclear?