The Filibuster Tradition

If the Republicans give in to the Democrats on this unprecedented use of the filibuster, they will lose their chance to shape the Supreme Court - the right of any President - should he find himself in the position to appoint a Supreme Court Justice(s).

If in 2006, should the Republicans lose control of the Senate, the Democrats again win out on this issue without needing the use of the filibuster since they could control the outcome of the up and down votes of appointees by simply voting along party lines.

When 2008 comes along, and if a Democrat were to win the Presidency, a reasonable probability, a Democratic president now would be appointing justices; and the Dems win out again. If and when (and it's just a matter of time) the Democrats have a sitting president and have regained control of the Senate, it is very likely the Democrats would end the right to filibuster to protect their interests.

So, as I see it, the Republicans have nothing to gain (and everything to lose)by being spineless. They must invoke the constitutional option.Wendy Long has written an article at NRO and her last paragraph capsulizes my thoughts.

...........Republicans are the ones who in the past have opposed "erasing" the real filibuster tradition on legislation. Democrats (including nine Democrats now sanctimoniously advocating the filibuster of President Bush's nominees) have favored it. And if you think that a President Hillary Clinton and a Democrat-controlled Senate would hesitate for one second to do away with the legislative filibuster if it suited their purposes — irrespective of whether Republicans in 2005 did or did not clarify the precedent of voting on judges — think again.