Which side is approaching the issue of judicial filibuster correctly?

[Palefire]

I've got to say the moderates. Cooler heads negotiating is the way things get done. But, as Senator Lindsey Graham noted today on the issue of getting a deal done "We're all grown men and women and we're behaving like we're in the third grade. Yes, it's very doable if people of good faith will come together."

I do have a hard time faulting the Democrats much. The Republicans have told them that they can keep the filibuster as long as they don't use it. That really doesn't leave the Democrats with any choice but to fight in one fashion or another. The kind of negotiating ploy that the Republican leadership has put out there makes it pretty clear they are itching to have this fight.

[Palefire]

I don't like the Democrats filibustering the nominees, but I don't want the Republicans to end the filibuster. I hope a compromise can be reached. (I find it ridiculious though that more people think the Dem's are right than the Moderates, even more so that it is more than the Mod's and Rep's combined.)

One thing that keeps coming up is "limiting debate". What the Democrats is doing is not really a "filibuster". A real filibuster is what Strom Thurmond did when he talked for 24 hours straight. Maybe they should start enforcing the rule that if you want to filibuster, you actually need to talk.

I do want the filibuster ended, but I also want debate, just not unlimited debate.

Yes, there should be a requirement for a filibuster to be people talking. 

One question thast I have is that if the filibuster is ended, will the nominees be confirmed?  My guess is that some won't.

If the filibuster is ended, I'll be suprised if all the judges don't get confirmed. But, I hope you are correct - it would at least show moderation after the fact. I think the actual judges have more support from the GOP than the idea of ending the filibuster. Who knows?