I thought that the Senate only needed a majority of party members in order vote on bills?
I don't think it requires a majority of BOTH parties.
I suppose they could just filibuster all legislation in order to stop the Senate from working? Or would the nuclear option disallow filibuster vetos on everything, not just judicial appointments?
How can they stop "business" if we have the majority?
You have four parties in the Senate:
Democrats
Republicans
"Independents" (Jeffords)
RINOs (and accomodationists)
You don't think that the dims can strip off 5 of those 7 to defeat the nuclear option? I'll almost guarantee you the first four will vote against the Republicans if it comes down to a confrontation. Specter will quote "Scottish Law" again. Don't you think one of the other 3, or someone I haven't named, will also jump ship in order to exercise some degree of power?
Remember in the play 1776, the final vote was put to a man who would be remembered as "the one who defeated independence" if he voted against, or only remembered, if at all, as one of the many who who voted for it. In that version he didn't want to stand out, so voting for independence was his "safe choice." None of these prima donnas merely want to be "one of the pack." If they have an opportunity to stand out, to be seen as casting the deciding vote, they'll jump at it, even if it means betraying every position they've ever taken. That goes for others, like Lott or a dozen other Republicans.
There are a few, but not a lot of, admirable people in the Senate, on either side.
You are exactly correct. If they don't want to show up - we can do this without them.
And .. I believe Rush is right when he said that if the repubs do this - several more dems will retire from the senate - because losing the power of judges will mean they are really totally out of power.
Don't know if this has been posted yet, but I recently read that, since so many things in the Senate require unanimous consent, the Democrats have many tactics to delay things.