Remember a while back there were a bunch of Republicans hemming and hawing over the use of the cloture procedure by Democrats to block appointments of President Bush? "Up or Down Vote" became a mantra of the right all across their media outlets. Eventually, a handful of centrist Democrats and Republicans brokered a deal to allow most of his nominees pass, while both ends of the spectrum faintly objected.

Fast forward to 2007, and the Democrats are in control.

So far, there have been 29 cloture votes rejected in the US Senate, nearly all of which was legislation supported by about 51 members of the Senate. In 2003, a comparable year because the Democrats lost control of the Senate and the Republicans took over, there were only 22 cloture votes rejected. 18 of which were for Presidential appointments, and seven of those (32% of all cloture votes) were for Miguel Estrada alone.

The question I have is, what is worse? Blocking needed legislation that effects the lives of many of the citizens of this country, from ever being debated on the floor? Or not allowing a handful of right-wing judges ascend to a lifetime appointment on the bench?

Unlike the GOP, I'm not going to foolishly try to argue that what the Republicans are doing is unconstitutional, as they did when the Democrats "filibustered" Bush's nominees, but I'm curious, why no media storm regarding these bills which a minority of Senators are blocking from being voted on? After all, the Constitution in regard to nominations only says "advise and consent," which because the Senate makes its own rules, could be unanimous consent if they so saw fit. Where is the outrage?