[neverdem]

If Slate published it, it supports their world view, regardless of who wrote it.

I'm not familiar with Slate's worldview. I am familiar Kaus, probably because he was linked by someone at NRO or Reason as a reference. Kaus' link happened to be the first usable result at Google.

Regardless, my point is that pubbies did the same thing to at least two of Clinton's nominees, Paez and Berzon, for about four and two years, respectively, by denying to vote for cloture and keeping debate open. It's not a filibuster.

I am hardly agree with what the dems are doing, but anyone who says that what the dems are doing is unprecedented is either ignorant or full of BS.

[neverdem]

I hardly agree with what the dems are doing, but anyone who says that what the dems are doing is unprecedented is either ignorant or full of BS.

[Phsstpok]

What the dems are doing is a planned strategy against a large block over the entire first Bush term against numerous Republican appointees. What happened twice during the eight years of the Clinton tumor on the body politic were spontaneous reactions to freakazoid extremists.

And personal attacks of the type you put up as "debate" makes me question your motives.

Your "ignorance and BS" be on your head, sir.

[AaronInCarolina]

Regardless, my point is that pubbies did the same thing to at least two of Clinton's nominees, Paez and Berzon, for about four and two years, respectively, by denying to vote for cloture and keeping debate open. It's not a filibuster.

I read the article that you linked to at Slate, and I could find no mention of denying vote for cloture. What is your source for that info. In fact, why would they have to be in that position to block a nomination??? Did not the Republicans control the senate, and therefore the judicial committee? Did Paez make it out of committee? If so, did the Republicans then block an up/down vote on the floor even though the Republican controlled committee okayed his nomination???

If the Paez nomination was blocked in committee, that is entirely appropriate, and nothing like what is happening in this senate. Please correct me, because I personally don't know much about the Paez case, but I do know that most so-called obstruction of judicial nominees that occurred in the Republican controlled senate was just a completely appropriate exercise of majority rule, not minority tyranny.