[Dat Mon]

I'm confused. I thought that the filibustering of presidential nominees...in effect denying a sitting president an up or down vote, far exceeds the stipulation in the Constitution that the Senate act in its capacity to "advise and consent".

Is there a Constitutional precedent that is being violated here...a skewing of the checks and balances between the legislative and executive...and not even the majority of the legislature to boot?

I thought that the "nuclear option" was the only remedy to this unconstitutional activity. Does this 'deal' represent a constitutional remedy also?

If it doesn't remedy the situation, I think its bad move...it is better IMHO to stand and fight for a principal....the Constitution. Let the RINOS and opportunists in this party go on record as opposing a remedy. Then hang that vote around their RINO necks come the next statewide primary campaign.

A little righteous anger from the President...who is after all the defacto leader of the Republican party wouldn't hurt either.

[demkicker]

A little righteous anger from the President...who is after all the defacto leader of the Republican party wouldn't hurt either.

Ditto! It's high time W. showed us some justifiable temper over this charade.