What are some truths about the filibuster, blameworthiness and the nuclear option?

Right now, in the blandest terms, the situation in the Senate seems to be this: Democrats have stymied votes on about a dozen Bush nominees to the appellate courts - stymied votes on some of those nominees for years, some indeed for so much of the president's first term that they withdrew their names from consideration.

With the Republicans having re-elected President Bush and gained seats in both houses of Congress last November, the president has resubmitted the names of many of the stalled nominees. The Democrats are threatening to filibuster them. Tired of the delays, the Republicans are threatening to change the Senate rule on filibusters so that only 51 votes (a majority) would be required to break a filibuster on judicial nominees, as opposed to the current 60-vote requirement.

Democrats answer that in the face of such a change in the filibuster rule, they will shut down the Senate's ability to conduct any business.

As to blame, both parties can boast an ample share.

The filibuster was used most effectively, and for the longest period, by Southern Democrats to thwart civil rights legislation - those Democrats preferring the term "extended debate" to the pejorative "filibuster."

Off and on since the mid-1950s, the filibuster - or the threat of it - has been used on a variety of issues, but perhaps only once regarding a judicial nomination, on that of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Fortas never took that seat. Perhaps the master of stymieing judicial nominations was Jesse Helms. The filibuster was not his tool of choice. Rather, he employed the Senate device of "holds" and just sat on unpalatable nominations - as a chicken sits on eggs that never hatch.

So there's plenty of blame for both parties. Now we have the spectacle of (a) Democratic Senators such as Robert Byrd deploring the very idea of changing the filibuster rule, when during the years of Democratic dominance he was the master of changing Senate rules to enable Democratic ambitions of the moment. And we have the spectacle of (b) Democratic Senators such as Patrick Leahy supporting the 60-vote filibuster rule now, but having said on for instance June 18, 1998: "I have stated over and over again on this (Senate) floor that I would . . . object and fight against any filibuster on a judge."

Yet do the Democrats get it? Do they get that they lost the November elections - indeed, that regardless of past blame the voters said directly or indirectly they want up-or-down votes on nominees to the federal courts now? That, in the words of the Constitution, the voters want the Senate to fulfill its advise-and-consent role?

Or do the Democrats get it too well? Do they understand that with congressional division still fairly close, their most effective weapons are party solidarity and threatening filibusters - and the promise to close the Senate to any other business?

Thus far in the president's second term, solidarity has served the Democrats well. Recall, please, all the noise about - let's see: John Negroponte, Michael Chertoff and Paul Wolfowitz; Michael Griffin at NASA; Steven Johnson at the EPA; and Lester Crawford at the FDA. And let us not forget the continuing hoo-ha about John Bolton to be ambassador to the U.N., as though the U.N. did not fully deserve someone to give it a good verbal reaming, at least.

Add in what has happened to administration initiatives for an energy bill (after five years) and Social Security reform, and will anyone deny that Democratic solidarity - with here and there breakaway Republican bipartisanship - has throttled an anticipated Republican juggernaut?

Blend all that with the spotlight now focused on Tom DeLay, and the consequent discussion is not so much about Republicans being better than the other guys - as about their being just as bad.

It's all about power, of course - and ideology.

The Democrats are now saying ridiculous and telltale things.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, on President Bush's re-nominations: "The president is at it again with the extremist judges. (The Senate should not) re-debate the merits of nominees already found too extreme by this chamber." Continued...