I try.
Sometimes I believe we get too much into our own talking points to see the big picture.
The constitution has hardly been shredded any more than usual. Blocking nominees by state holds or supressed committee hearings is just a matter of degree.
If you want the "bad view" spin, you could say that seven republicans decided today that they would not vote yes on nominees if they couldn't get at least 5 democrats to agree to at least allow a vote.
Any Senator has the constitutional right to base his or her voting decision on any criteria they wish.
Frist stood up for the proposition that because only a majority is needed to confirm a judge, it should only take a majority to change the rules if the majority wants to confirm.
But Seven of his own party decided they DIDN'T want to confirm the judges strongly enough to be willing to change the rules.
NOW, a better spin.
They didn't agree that the nuclear option was invalid, or violated the rules of the senate. In fact, you could say the agreement implicitly blesses the option, since it merely provides that seven republicans won't vote for it, without any statement that such a vote would be bad for the Senate.
But my point wasn't to spin again, it was to discuss the notion that the constitution has been destroyed by 7 republicans and 7 democrats deciding to vote as a block to preserve the rules the way they are. There is nothing unconstitutional about that.
Are you a Constitutional scholar ?
Mark Levin is. Mark Levin is also a fellow FREEPER of long standing. Are your credentials as good as his are?
He disagrees with every single statement you have made. I trust him far more, than I trust your words, newbie.