...looks slightly less than productive:

Democrats served notice Tuesday that they will slow or stop most Senate business if Republicans unilaterally change the rules to assure confirmation of President Bush's controversial court appointments.

Any such change would mark "an unprecedented abuse of power," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., wrote Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

Reid, the Democratic leader, exempted military and national security legislation from the threat, and said Democrats would not block passage of measures needed to assure continuation of critical government services.

"To shut down the Senate would be irresponsible and partisan," Frist said in swift rebuttal. "The solution is simple: return to 200 years of tradition and allow up or down votes on judges."

This kind of move has the potential for a massive backlash. Time will tell if the Republicans have the cojones to continue to press with the nuclear option, and if the Democrats will respond in accordance with their threats.

I think the best move for the Democrats at this point is to simply allow the vote for all judicial appointments. It is not in their best interests to have the nuclear option already in place when Supreme Court nominations hit the Senate floor.

Again, here is a little lesson in Constitutional job requirements: The President has the responsibility of appointing judges he thinks will do a good job. The Senate has the responsibility to say if the appointees are qualified or not.

So far, the minority party in the Senate has refused to do their job. (Perhaps their wages should be garnished until they perform their duties prescribed by the Constitution.) Instead of allowing a decision on whether the proposed judges are acceptable or not, they have chosen to make no decision. Call it tactical procrastination, hoping that the candidates eventually get tired of hanging in limbo and withdraw their names (which did happen with Estrada a few years back).

I'm not a big fan of the nuclear option, but this situation has gone on long enough. It is interesting that the Democrats are threatening any action which seeks to break up the gridlock with more gridlock. With how they fared during the last elections, I figured they might understand that their tactics during Bush's first term we not resonating with the voters. Obviously not.