Filibustering, But for What?

 We're living in a bad dream
They've forgotten all about mankind 
--All Those Years Ago, 
George Harrison 

You can cry a million tears
You can wait a million years
If you think that time will change your ways
Don't wait too long 
--Don't Wait Too Long,
 Madeleine Peyroux
____________________

It is understandable that the legions hooked up to the IV of daily hatred spewed forth from the media towards every move of their newly-elected President would come to meld with that angry mindset. To cower before every condemnation, and lash out with frustrated fury to any and everyone with whom they feel will be in resonance.

But the historic partisan Democratic filibuster of  Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch -- by all accounts an outstanding jurist -- is madness.

Gorsuch was admired by most mainstream Democrats up until now (including our own Sen. Bill Nelson [D-FL], until he decided he did not), so what could be the reason to end Senate rules which have allowed for centuries of bipartisanship, other than pure spitefulness?

In the anti-Trump New York Times, Neal K. Katyal (acting solicitor general in the Obama administration) in a considered Op-Ed explained why liberals should back Judge Gorsuch for the ninth seat on the Court.

Still, the Democratic grandstanding continues. What makes Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren MDP's? Republicans will probably have to invoke the "Nuclear Option" -- a simple majority -- first used by Democrats in 2013 (when former Senate majority leader Harry Reid [D-NV] convinced Senate Democrats to change Senate rules.)

Some Republicans warned the move would come back to haunt the Democrats.

Imagine if the roles were reversed and it was Republicans who were standing on the Senate floor blocking a vote. The media would go ballistic.

Let the nomination process begin, and the democratic rule of law hold fair sway.