The amount of spin coming from the left on the subject of their propensity to filibuster the President's judicial nominees has been nothing close to the truth and as such is dangerous, in that John Q. Public doesn't know he's being lied to when Kennedy and Robert Byrd say that republicans want to end the filibuster and end their right of free speech and stripping the minority of using the filibuster. The majority is running roughshod over the minority, etc... The republicans want to change 200 years of history and remove the filibusters. You've heard all that in the biased media.
Now for the un-dumbed down no-spin version.
First thing to do is separate the apples from the oranges. This is where the left's spin is dangerous. Kennedy and Byrd aren't telling you that there is no intention to touch the filibuster as pertains to legislation, ie in both houses of congress. All the majority wants to do is rule that the filibuster cannot apply to judicial nominees, that's it. The constitutional reasoning for this is that only a simple majority (51) is required for confirmation of a judicial nominee. That's what the Constitution says. The Constitution also spells out a few instances where a supermajority of the Senate is required, and, judicial nominees in committee is not one of them.
As for tradition, never before in the history of our country has a political party invoked the filibuster to block JUDICIAL NOMINEES. period It is true that the filibuster has been used when deliberating legislation, as that is an acceptable tool in forming legislation. But the filibuster HAS NEVER been used to block judicial nominations from going to the Senate for a vote until the democrats on the committee started it in the last Congress. What's the big deal you might say? The big deal is that it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster, which is procedure. And unless a filibuster is broken, that nominee is prevented from getting voted on by the Senate. It's a clever way of altering the Constitution without touching it. It is these democrats that are breaking with 200 years of tradition and practicing the obstructionism they seem to enjoy. Because of invoking the filibuster on Bush's nominees, it is forcing a super-majority vote on something that constitutionally only requires a simple majority. It is the republicans that want to preserve 200 years of tradition, not kill it like the dems are saying. It is the dems who have broken with tradition and are now lying about it.
Aside from all that, why should it matter who the President nominates? The judges only interpret law, they don't make law. (right) Whoever it is deserves the Senate vote, the same as the Senators deserve their right to vote on them. It's the dems that are preventing the Senators from performing their duty, which is voting up or down on the nominees. If the nominee gets over 50 votes in the Senate, it is done. If not, then it's up to the President to pick someone else and try again.
The nuclear option or constitutional option? How about the right-to-a-vote option?