the hypocritical Sen. John Warner and his views on the filibuster

Recently I wrote to Sen. John Warner (R-VA) to tell him not only my displeasure in Bush's radical appointees to the Judical branch but also to urge him not to support the so-called "nuclear option"...the "nuclear option" is one in which the traditional unlimited debate known as the filibuster would be stricken from the Senate rules thereby not allowing the minority party (in this case the Democrats) to block judicial nominees and halt votes on other important legislative responsibilities...his response was a meek and hypocritical one:

"It is interesting to note that the "filibuster" - defined as an extreme dilatory tactic to obstruct or prevent action - is never mentioned in the Constitution. The word "filibuster" is also never even mentioned in the Standing Rules of the Senate. On the other hand, the Constitution is clear. It specifically enumerates those instances in which a super-majority vote of Senators, rather than a simple majority vote, is required for Senate action..."

first of all, there's a lot of things "not mentioned" in the Constitution. Copyright law, women's right to vote, the "right to bear arms", etc. just to name a few...does that mean that it's not an important piece of the American legislature? Of course not...even Sen. John Warner himself said that "he right of unlimited debate has been a hallmark of the Senate since its inception."

of course what's the issue? The Republicans want to support their President's radical rightwing freakazoids...so Mr. "You can Aids through sweat" Senator Bill Frist wants to nuke it and get rid of it...of course forgetting that Republicans have used the filibuster to halt the nomination of a Surgeon General appointed by President Clinton, more recently used the filibuster to halt airline worker's aid, and of course the outburst over judicial nominees is but a rehashing of what Clinton said years ago, almost exactly the same:

"President Clinton accused Republicans Saturday of posing "a very real threat to our judicial system" by blocking the appointment of dozens of federal judges for political purposes."

This of course is not to even bring up one of the first highly publized usage of the filibuster to block judical nominees, that of a Republican filibuster of President Johnson's nomination of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to become Chief Justice, which eventually led to a withdrawal by Johnson...but honestly do we expect anything less than moderate hypocrisy by the Republicans these days? I know I don't...