[NraFreedom]

Well, since you brought it up, yes I am.

You see, changing the rules hurts the ability of the majority party to do certain things. For some forty or more years the filibuster was the only thing that kept the liberals from turning the good old USA into a communist camp.

Now that we are in the majority we are seeing our nemesis do the same thing we did. It is only fair.

If we cannot use the rules of the game in the senate chamber then we need some of the old guys to teach the new guys how it works. (it is the old art of statesmanship).

Now a couple of salient points: the filibuster is the only thing that has stood between gun confiscation and the ability to hunt.

Second, if we change the rules, and use the nuclear option, then it will give the opposition the same permission to use it when they are in the majority; it sets a precedent that is not good. Just because the Dems have changed Senate history and become the only ones to EVER filibuster on "advise and consent" issues is no reason for us to set a precedence by doing something equally stupid.

[Tribune7]

Second, if we change the rules, and use the nuclear option, then it will give the opposition the same permission to use it when they are in the majority;

If they stop our judges it doesn't matter.