How will the 'Nuclear' option play out?

[amjucsc]

Apparently the Republicans are going to go through with attempt to de-rail the filibuster:

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1709828&mesg_id=1709828&page=>

While I'm confident that the Dems will filibuster the attempt into the ground, I'm wondering what the country as a whole will make of the political battle. I suspect the Republicans are really interested in manufacturing ammunition to use against Dems in '06--they'll portray us as obstructionists, attempting to use an arcane Senate manuver to 'block the will of the majority' etc, etc.

Will the country buy it? And what can we say to convince the country that we're doing the right thing. I suspect that we may have to convince the country that the filibuster is worth protecting. A couple of ideas for talking points:

Nothing in the Constitution requires as (up or down) vote for a court justice. The Constitution tasks the Senate with giving 'advice and consent' to the President, presumably leaving it to the Senate to decide what constitutes consent. Historically the court has chosen to treat ratifying a justice under the same rules it would use for ratifying a piece of major legislation, and there's no obvious reason to change that.

Nearly half the country did vote Democratic in the last election, and (I don't have a source for this statistic, but I recall hearing it mentioned somewhere) more Americans voted for Democratic Senate Candidates than Republican Senate Candidates in 2004. However the rules of the Senate allow people in small states to vote in outsized majorities: In the Senate 30m Californians and 20m New Yorkers have as much voice as a half million Alaskans or Wyomingans. In order to protect the rights of those underrepresented people in large states, its reasonable to require important matters to be passed by a broad majority.

However this would mean that Republicans could not get many of their more controversial nominations through the court. Thus they're trying to rewrite the rules so that millions of people in large states will be effectively silenced in a tremendiously important national debate. This isn't fair.

The Dems will happily vote for a candidate like Sandra Day O'Connor, or Anthony Kennedy (and if you're expecting W to nominate anyone more liberal than these two you're kidding yourselves) who will objectively look at the Constitution. We only object to ultra-Conservatives who would use their position as an exuse to drag the country to the right.

Anyway, those are my suggestions. Feel free to include your own below.

[kentuck]

1. Good question...

I think the Repubs are trying to run a bluff and scare a few of the "weaker" Democratic Senators into going along with their agenda. In poker terms, they are trying to "run a sandy"...