Yes, you forget how many judicial nominees had been blocked by the democrats. This created a huge log jam of time and effort to get the nominees subsequently through. The left still had the threat of filibuster available, even if not utilized, and this also caused more delay. So, a trickle of them went through and then the democrats came in power. The left did not need to filibuster judges any more once in power.
The nuclear option would have opened the flood gate of nominees prior to 2006. It should have been utilized years ago.
Has it really been alone, the [implied] threat of Democrat filibuster that had held up all the Bush nominees? Is it that simple? I wish it were, for then it would all be easier.
What about now, or the near future --- after the next presidential election? Do we want to not be able to filibuster a Shrillary nominee? We need not do it each and every time. In fact, we should negotiate from what strength we have [close to half the seats] and filibuster enough against the Ruth Ginsberg types, that they know we mean business.
Of course, when Republicans do it, then the media gets critical of them, while conveniently ignoring that the Democrats have long proven themselves to be the obstructionists, when it comes to to judicial nominees nominated by the opposition Party's President, regardless of how doing that reflexively, Jack-ass party style, can be even worse news for this country, then appointing a judge one hold ambivalence for...