I can't help but notice that -- rather than suggesting any viable plan of action of your own (other than simply Sitting Down and Shutting Up, I mean) -- all you ever seem to offer, to date, is insults towards anyone demanding more accountability of their elected representatives than you do, yourself.
I also find it bizarrely fascinating that you label anyone expressing principled and legitimate disgareement with your stance, vis-a-vis this topic, as "dissidents." What, pray tell, do you suppose ought to be done with such "dissidents," ultimately...?
Noticed that your comments (in #74) have so far not received a direct and cogent rebuttal. Yesterday this was important, today it's not?
I still haven't had any response to my opinion that a supermajority requirement for judicial appointments is bad (that the ability of a minority of Senators to block appointmenst is bad) -- to the contrary, it's been held out as a good thing, in case conservatives are ever in the minority.
At any rate, even though the judicial contention has not been settled, I think all of us can agree that is it reasonable to EXPECT success (i.e., at least approval of nominees) during the current session of the Senate, even though we aren't clear as to the exact mechanism.
I wonder, is that a reasonable expectation?
I'd like to see a vigorous debate as to the application of the unanimous consent rule to judicial nominations. THe hurdle must be made higher, for any Sanator who is objecting to taking the vote.