The word's not that complicated as long as you don't use 2 "L's". The great thing about it is it encourages team play and rewards discipline - something the Democrats sorely need. And as a bonus, the mere hint of the word causes Bill Frist to foam at the mouth and assume his role as the French Poodle who thinks he's a Rott.

Let Frist fume and threaten the nuclear - er, uh - "constitutional" option. Make it a Republican gut-check. Do the Republicans really want to do away with the filibuster once and for all - and its protections for the minority party - just on the cusp of the Democrats retaking control of the Senate? A filibusterless Democratic Senate would be a bitter pill indeed for the last 2 years of Bushco - and I believe that moderate Republicans would have to think long and hard before cutting off their collective nose to spite their face.

Besides, the public is luke-warm at best about Alito and his demeanor of a slightly pedophilic priest. Democrats - show some spine!

Even if your last questions was rhetorical, I feel compelled to answer:

I expected democratic senators to mount a vigorous, well thought out campaign of questioning. After listening to about 90% of the confirmation hearings; I can honestly say that they didn't play the game like it was the most important game of our lives.

Instead I felt like I was listening to the forgotten step child clammoring for attention. Senators are typically graduates of law schools; but it was clear that none had the ability to mount a strong case against Alito. Instead they used their time to speak, speak, speak.

So in the end, the votes are counted and unfortunately people voted on their politics, not on Judge Alito. In a court of law, the burden would have been on the democratic senators, and I am sad to say they failed to shoulder that burden.

...and on a different note: what the HELL is wrong with Chris Matthews, what a loon!

Sen. Graham's comment is predicated on the falsehood that George W. Bush has ever been elected President.

To answer his question in light of what really happened in 2004: This is exactly what I expected Bush would do when his owners overthrew their second Presidential election in a row.

The question should instead be: Why is anyone pretending that Bush has any authority to appoint Supreme Court justices -- or do anything else for that matter?

The only choice Democrats in the Senate have regarding Alito is "Yes" or "Filibuster." Voting "No" is equivalent in every realistic way as voting yes -- it puts Alito onto the Supreme Court of the United States of America for the rest of his natural life.

So, to any Democratic Senator who votes no, all I can say is, "Big deal, grow a spine." Or do we really have a one-party system of government in this country, like so many fear?

G.W. Bush is no Julius Caesar. The people liked Julius Caesar. There is no reason to bend over for this would-be tyrant who disregards the rule of law, the Constitution, the well-being of hundreds of millions of our countrymen in favor of a couple of million mega-wealthy citizens.

If there isn't even one Democrat in the Senate worth his salt, willing to serve his constinuents, dedicated enough to this Republic, then God help us.

Of course Alito could be all G.W. needs to become the next Julius Caesar. And, perhaps, our Nero is only a few generations down the line. Is there not even one Senator willing to stand up for the Republic? Maybe when the Supreme Court grants the "President" all the power he wants, the President will eventually appoint his favorite dog or horse to the Senate (like Caligula did), and the powerless cowards in that Senate will at last be working with worthy peers.

Save our Republic!

What did you expect Senate Democrats to do when they won?

More than put up a pointless vote "no" that will not prevent the Court from entrenching itself on the right.

While this may be an elementary lesson in civics, we should focus on the concept that the checks and balances system is much more complex than the oversimplifiers would have us believe. No branch has sole province over any other branch, and that extends to the judiciary branch, which is co-selected by the executive and the legislative branches. If either the President or the Congress had the sole power to select the judiciary, the judiciary would become simply an extension of the branch that selected it, thus destroying checks and balances.

When the question is asked "What did you expect Bush to do?", that question arrogantly pre-supposes that the President selects the judiciary. He does not. The president initiates the process, and the Congress decides who does and does not become a member of the judiciary. Congressional approval was never intended to be a rubber stamp, and to the extent that the President's nominees have been approved in most cases, it is more of a reflection of respect and deference in the selection process, i.e., choosing a nominee that the Congress can support.

The question should be put to Lindsey Graham, "What did you expect the Congress to do?". Sadly, I have come to expect this Congress to do nothing to reject the unprecedented parade of unqualified nominees for every appointed position that Bush nominates.

Call me a strict constructionist, but it is high time this Congress gets back to doing the job that the Constitution contemplated, advising and consenting. Or not consenting.

I've already ordered my new bumper sticker: "If you cut my reproductive options, can I cut off yours?"

It isn't just what you'd expect from Bush - he didn't select Scalia and Thomas. Since 1968, 7 of the 10 administrations have been Republican. That gives an enormous advantage to them for getting to pick justices to their liking and, the 2000 election notwithstanding, if the Court seems to lean ever more to the right, it's our own damn fault. I'm asking everyone I can to never vote for any Republican ever again for any reason whatsoever.