It's good that many Americans are starting to realize what hypocrites the Rethugs are, and the fillibuster issue is no exception. Ain't it ironic that when they finally choose to detonate the "nuclear option," one of their first nominees is an African American female (a two-fer, some would say); they love the prospect of labelling the predictable Democratic opposition to this kook's nomination as "racist." Historically, Senate Repubs have been vicious in attacking Blacks and women nominated by Clinton; when Republicans controlled the Senate in his administration, 45% of his district court nominees were never confirmed. Doesn't matter one lick whether Repubs used the fillibuster to accomplish this; fact is their claim of constitutional entitlement to an up or down vote on every nominee is just bullshit. Repubs regularly made Democratic nominees wait months and months for a hearing before the Judiciary Committee, and in notable cases denied the nominees of a hearing altogether. Funny, but I didn't hear Repubs talking about their "right" to an up or down vote over the FOUR YEARS the nominations of Judges Helene White and Richard Paez were delayed, or the 2 1/2 years Judge Ronnie White had to wait for a hearing.

These people will say anything to get and maintain their power. They have no shame.

Ain't it ironic that when they finally choose to detonate the "nuclear option," one of their first nominees is an African American female (a two-fer, some would say); they love the prospect of labelling the predictable Democratic opposition to this kook's nomination as "racist."

Yeah, I linked an article from OpinionJournal yesterday titled Democrats Nuke Party Beliefs To Stop Women because the damn thing was so ridiculous. Because THEY react in knee-jerk fashion to minorities and women they expect EVERYONE to do so.

Classic case of projection.

Historically, Senate Repubs have been vicious in attacking Blacks and women nominated by Clinton;

Either they're "blacks and women" or they're "partisan nominees".  Whichever you pick, you have to pick the same in both contrexts.   If the Republicans were attacking "blacks and women", then so are the Democrats today.  Personally, I see them all as partisans, and don't blame the other side for objecting on partisan grounds; the gender and race thing is secondary at most.

when Republicans controlled the Senate in his administration, 45% of his district court nominees were never confirmed.

The Republicans had a majority.   That's the nature of the Senate controlled by one party, and the presidency controlled by the other.  Some suggest that we should vote to achieve such tension.

Either they're "blacks and women" or they're "partisan nominees".  Whichever you pick, you have to pick the same in both contrexts.   If the Republicans were attacking "blacks and women", then so are the Democrats today.

Nonsense. There's no reason to assume two different entities will use the same terms to judge a single thing.

here's no reason to assume two different entities will use the same terms to judge a single thing.

Agreed.  The claim is that any given single entity, say you, me, or fullnelson, is logically required to describe the actions of both parties without redefining terms inbetween. 

That doesn't prevent the one person from observing two entities have different motives.