If republican representatives or senators were to continually hold press conferences, or call in media types to give statements about the tactic the Democrats are using, the next election might solve the problem by eliminating some of the blockers. For example, why aren't the republican representatives in South Dakota going ballistic over Daschele's methods? Why aren't the Florida republican representatives going to the airwaves complaining about Nelson and Graham blocking the Hispanic nominee?
There are public relation issues that can be exploited, and yet I don't see anything but whining.
I like the ideas that both of you have displayed. The term 'nuclear option' is really one that is meant to ellicit harsh reactions and I don't think that it should be allowed to define the debate. It is also wrong, as in the 'quagmire', 'Vietnam repeat', 'massive civilian casulties' vein.
My next question is: What if Bush made recess appts., do they have to exit as soon as Congress reconvenes? Or does a replacement have to be voted on? Will they filibuster that or be glad of the replacement? Does the recess appt. stay until a new judge has been voted on? Depending on the answers, it could be a new source of hardball. It would go well with your suggestions.