Sorry, I've lost your train of thought here. Nothing has changed, but it's about time things did. We're over a barrel because the Dems are using the filibuster to deny Bush his more meaningful judicial appointments, and that obstruction hasn't been slapped down....I mean, isn't that what we're talking about? Estrada withdrew his name, but none of the rest of Bush's significant nominations that he put in along with Estrada's have been approved by the Senate.
I will say this about the difference between now, and what's existed over the past four years: From 2001-2003, the Dems were effectively in control of the Sen., thanks to Jumpin' Jim Jeffords, and even though the viewpoint was bogus, the Dems believed that Geo. W. Bush lacked the political mandate to name conservative judges to the bench. In 2003-04, the GOP had a very slim majority, and probably couldn't have "gone nuclear" what with the likes of Chafee, Collins, Specter, and Snowe...there weren't the votes in the caucus to effect a change. Today, we have 55 members, which seems to me to be sufficient to get work down in the Senate. I mean, 55 Republican members can't face-down 44 Democrats? How much of a majority do we need to actually start getting things done? -- 60 members? 66 members? The attitude of some is to suck it up and elect even more Republicans to the Senate in 2006, but IMHO 55 should be enough, and caving-in to the attitude that, well, I guess we'll just need to elect another 5 GOP senators, is unrealistic.
But now that we're into Bush's second term, the GOP realizes that its supporters are getting very frustrated and it has to act. I also think the Pubbies were dragging things out to use the nuke on a Supreme Court nomination if an opening occurred. Since that hasn't happened, we're now into showdown mode. (I hope.) Just my two cents...