As you all know by now, Senator Kennedy has been a strong voice on this issue, and we all need to be committed to fighting this off together.  There are plenty of issues that we all respectfully disagree about here - this is one where we can all stand together. You can join Senator Kennedy in asking Senator Frist to stop it now before his attack reaches the supreme court or as I have asked before you can contact your Senators, now as they debate on the floor.

The future of the judiciary, and most importantly, the Supreme Court depends on it. I've also included just a few of the clips I found from articles talking about how this battle on the nuclear option is important not just historically, but because of its future impact on the makeup of the Supreme Court.

Please - recommend this diary; spread the word, and take action: Join senator Kennedy and take a stand to protect the supreme court or call your Senators now.

"Two congressional battles loom. War is already under way over the question of Mr Bush's judicial nominations, which conservatives say have been blocked unfairly by Democrats; some Republicans now want to invoke "the nuclear option" and change Congress's rules to stop their opponents filibustering the nominees. That struggle, though, would pale alongside the war brewing if Mr Bush has to nominate somebody to the Supreme Court. Several justices, including Chief Justice William Rehnquist, are ailing." ["Judge Yourself; Conservatives v. The Judiciary," The Economist, April 23, 2005]

"Social conservatives, an important Republican constituency, have been the most outspoken supporters of ending filibusters. A broad swath of conservative groups, including the Family Research Council, is asking Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee to pull the trigger on the "nuclear" option soon -- before a vacancy arises on the Supreme Court. Ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist is widely expected to step down from the court by the end of June, creating the first vacancy on the high court in 11 years." [Reid: Radical Republicans Fueling Filbuster Fight," Orlando Sentinel, April 26, 2005]

"Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., under pressure from the religious right, is considering a backdoor scheme to circumvent the rules of the Senate and allow the most controversial choices for federal judgeships to be pushed onto the bench by a bare majority. Ten of President Bush's judicial nominees were filibustered in the last Congress; seven have been renominated and could come up for a vote soon. This battle is considered a dress rehearsal for the fight over the next Supreme Court nominee." ["Founders' intentions may be casualty in fight over judges," USA Today, April 25, 2005]

"''The principle is getting fair, up-or-down votes on judicial nominees,'' Dr. Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said in a meeting with reporters on Tuesday, responding to a Democratic offer to confirm a few of the previously blocked judges if Republicans withdrew the others. ''The principle is with respect to future appeals court nominees as well,'' he said. ''All nominees who are waiting, as well as for the future.''

In an interview published Tuesday in USA Today, Mr. Rove also rejected the Democrats' compromise. ''We believe that every judicial nominee deserves an up-or-down vote,'' he said. ''The process is not well-served by these political games.''

The Republicans' comments bring the Senate closer than ever to the brink of a confrontation over the rules of judicial confirmations that both sides acknowledge is likely to determine who will fill any Supreme Court vacancies." ["Rove and Frist Reject Democrats' Compromise Over Bush's Judicial Nominees," The New York Times, April 27, 2005]

"Of course, as some observers have noted, the oncoming Senate showdown isn't just about Owen or any of the other stalled nominations. It's about U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist -- specifically, who will replace him when he retires as expected this spring or summer. The White House wants the filibuster rule off the table so it can nominate and -- with 55 votes in the Senate -- confirm virtually whomever it wants for that key post.

"My guess is that it's between Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and Thomas has the edge with Bush," says Jonathan Turley, a professor at Georgetown University School of Law, referring to the U.S. Supreme Court's two most conservative members. "So ultimately, this filibuster vote will be about Thomas. If the filibuster rule is not defeated, Thomas will never see the inside of the chief justice's chamber." ["The woman who could detonate the `nuclear option'," Salon.com, May 3, 2005]

"Abolishing the filibuster not only could allow a polarizing nominee for chief justice -- such as current Associate Justices Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas -- to be confirmed by a simple majority instead of the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster. In the view of some observers, the rule change means that Bush would be more likely to seek to elevate Scalia or Thomas than to replace Rehnquist with some other candidate favored by the president's culturally conservative base." ["FALLOUT UNCLEAR; OVER SENATE MOVE TO CURB DEBATE ON JUDGES," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, May 18, 2005]