So, Frist is arguing that one filibuster is OK. His problem is that several Bush nominees have been filibustered. This position completely undercuts Frist’s argument that judicial filibusters are unconstitutional. (Which is, in turn, the justification for the nuclear option.) If judicial filibusters are unconstitutional there is no freebee. But Frist digs his whole even deeper:The Republican argument for the filibuster is about as nonsensical as it could be. They have even overturned their own stated reasoning for taking such a drastic step.
As more and more information comes out, it is ever more clear how revolutionary the Republican's nuclear option would be. The Republicans would have to overrule the Senate rules to change the Senate rules. A supermajority of Senators is required to change the rules unless the President of the Senate, Republican Vice President Dick Cheney, rules the rule unconstitutional. The Vice President, as a member of the executive, is put in a rather tricky constitutional position. In essence he is ensuring the passage of the President's agenda over the objections of members of the Senate. It's a rather untenable position for the system of checks and balances that has ensured the survival of our Democracy.
In the interest of short-term political gain, the Republican party is willing to short circuit the very basis of our Constitutional government.