Yea, why bother actually proving your point when you can simply lie your sorry ass off.

Geebus, Bithead. What a loser.

As for Bork - that's not a trend. That's the rejection of a single supreme court justice

Well, let's try Justice Thomas, and draw a line between the two to pick up a trend. True, he managed to get confirmed, but not until after the Democrat Dirt Machine had it's way. Matter of fact, just about any Republican nominee since Nixon has run the liberal litmus gauntlet. Some, (Roberts for example) have managed to placate the left long enough to get confirmed. Some others, like Bork, have not.

More history, perhaps is needed. Let's try looking at a few others. Ever heard of G. Harrold Carswell? Or perhaps Clement F. Haynsworth, Jr.?

And should we also address the kind of nominees Republicans have been forced to put forward by Democrat game playing?

Well, considering that's the way it's been for - oh, I don't know - five YEARS, perhaps you could come up with some comparative examples rather than your traditional "hold the flashlight under your face and speak obtusely in a spooky voice", insinuation strategy.

You've got that a little reversed, don't you?

Yes. Please pardon the misstatement. My point is not really affected. As for Bork - that's not a trend. That's the rejection of a single supreme court justice. In the past three decades, Democratic-led senatorial actions have rejected *one* Supreme Court Justice and confirmed... six from Republicans? Starting with Reagan?

You fundamentally didn't challenge my point. The filibustering and the federal court blocking were Republican innovations. And Kevin Drum points out today that the "amendment-tree filling" was brought out of obscurity by Bob Dole. If that's a lie, you can show it with statistics. Otherwise, Novak is blustering and misrepresenting, which surprises me not in the slightest.

This is a Republican-driven phoenomenon. The logic at work should be obvious, listening to Republican pundits blame democrats for failures to break cloture, while the republicans are the people voting no!

Well, considering that's the way it's been for - oh, I don't know - five YEARS, perhaps you could come up with some comparative examples rather than your traditional "hold the flashlight under your face and speak obtusely in a spooky voice", insinuation strategy.

Did little Allen Specter, just five years old, just figure out this was happening?

Think Reid, given reversed tables, wouldn't have his people screaming?

PLease

Quell surprise! Imagine! Politics being played in a hotly contested election year! It's almost unheard of.

Geebus. They're not yelling, screaming and casting about Gallic terms or anything. They are doing the gentlemen's thing and politely sticking a knife in the back instead of a more rousing "FU" and a middle digit prominently displayed.

Seriously, WTF? Did little Allen Specter, just five years old, just figure out this was happening?

I mean, it's not like they outed a NOC CIA agent just to get back at a husband's op ed or something.

I must say that I do find it hilarious that people believe that other people, who have wildly different ideas, should be able to come together and compromise like gentlemen.

I think they should behave as gentlemen, yes. That doesn't mean they have to compromise willy nilly.

What Specter's talking about here are procedures deliberately designed to forestall prevent and the crafting of sensible compromise, though. Certainly, there are issues where people feel strongly and are diametrically opposed. For the most part, though, the differences are over where precisely to draw the line.

Presumably, Specter wanted to add amendments to help achieve Boxer's desired outcome of incrementally improving environmental regulation. By "filling the tree," though, Reid ensured that the bill would go down in flames but that Democrats would have an issue.

It is also important to keep in mind that the House and the Senate are two very different bodies with very different rules and purposes in the legislative branch. The myth of the Senate is that it is more deliberative, congenial, and supposed to act as a brake on the more reactionary impulses of the House. I'm not sure how valid that myth remains today.

Personally, I still think the pendulum is oscillating wildly and unpredictably in response to the Democrats loss of control in the 90's after 40 years of virtually owning Congress. Hard to call that just a Republican or a Democrat problem.

Wish that was true, Arlen; then all of you, in both parties, could go home.

I run my own business, and it is a continuing guessing game to try to understand and stay ahead of government regulations and requirements. I am on the last major project of my working career, two to three more years.
If I were thirty years old today, and knowing what I know now, I don't think I could go out into the world of business and put in the same effort and achieve the same success. I am up to my armpits with government regulations, thanks to jerks like Arlen.(plenty of, and bigger suspects in the democrat party, also)
I guess some people look at the increased regulations as a protection of workers and the consumers. Some do, some don't. Most don't.
These regulations have turned employees and myself into useless followers, automatons of the Federal government.

Fainting like princesses is a tactic, just like yelling and screaming is another tactic. Whining like babies when things get personal and heated is another tactic, but more akin to a third grade playground.