This seems to be the plan. Look at how far the charge of "obstructionism" over the Homeland Security bill took the GOP in 2002. Obstructionism over judicial nominations -- not just obstructionism that threatens legislation, but obstructionism that undermines the Constitution -- could be quite a lethal weapon in the hands of the Republicans. If, as is conjectured, one or two Supreme Ct. justices retire this summer, the idea of the Democrats obstructing one or two Bush appointees to the Supreme Ct., and likely the nomination of a new Chief Justice, should put the Democrats into a corner, particularly if he nominates highly qualified judges. This kind of obstructionism might play well among ivy league law school faculty, but it won't play well with voters.
Can someone help me out here? If the Dem's are engaging in tactics that run counter to the established rules, why doesn't the Parlamentarian over rule them?