Going "Nuclear" in the Senate

A right leaning BBS-aquaintance complained about the Senate Democrats holding up W's judicial nominees and the threat of the "nuclear option" of ending cloture, saying...

...it is a means to force the Senate to abide by its Constitutional role of Advise and Consent - ALL of the Senate, not the very few on the Judiciary Committee who want to forestall said votes.

My response to him follows...

While it is true that in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution limits the power of the Executive by requiring the “Advice and Consent of the Senate”, it does not specify exactly what that really means. We naturally infer some sort of vote of confirmation. But how should that vote proceed? Well, let’s look to the Constitution once more and we will see in Article I, Section 5 it reads in part “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings”. The filibuster has been within the rules of the Senate for well over 200 years. The US Senate’s own website informs us that ” Unlimited debate remained in place in the Senate until 1917. At that time, at the suggestion of President Woodrow Wilson, the Senate adopted a rule (Rule 22) that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote -- a tactic known as "cloture." My point in citing all this is that the Senate is indeed conforming to its Constitutional role. These measures were put in place intentionally to protect the minority. That is why, too, that it is the Senate and not the House that has the Advise and Consent role.
I agree with John Podesta when he said in a C-SPAN presentation,

By removing the safeguard offered by the filibuster, the nuclear option would seriously and perhaps irreparably damage an institution that has functioned since its inception under customs and traditions that ensure an atmosphere of careful deliberation and mutual respect. Ultimately, this is not a dispute between the left and the right. It’s a matter of right and wrong. It’s a choice between safeguarding our system of checks and balances or destabilizing it; between upholding the Senate’s coequal role in the confirmation process or diminishing it.

Scott, you quoted Senator Leahy to support your call for “an up or down vote”. Read here what some noted Republican Senators have to say about this “nuclear option”:

Senator John McCain on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews (4/14/05):
MATTHEWS: “But, bottom line, would you vote with the people for the nuke -- what is called the nuclear option, to get rid of the filibuster rule on judgeships?”
MCCAIN: “No, I will not.”
MATTHEWS: “You will stick with the party on that?”
MCCAIN: “Oh, I will vote against the nuclear option.”

Senator Bob Dole on CNN’s Late Edition (4/17/05):
“You know…I’ve said you got to use extreme caution. It’s got to be a last resort. You’ve gotta try negotiation; you gotta try everything.”
...
“My advice to Bill Frist is that… gotta be a last resort You’ve got to make every effort to come to terms.”

Senator Chuck Hagel on CNN's Late Edition (4/17/05):
“Well, I think Senator McCain's argument is a good one, but I would make a little deeper argument here as to how we have to be very careful.
It seems to me, we ha ve two very important issues that are about to collide unless cooler heads prevail.
One is the rights of minorities in the Senate, and Senator Feinstein is absolutely correct. The United States Senate is a very unique institution. One of the reasons it is… it is at the core of its responsibilities, the protection of minority rights. That is very important.
And the other interest that is important, and we have some constitutional obligation for, is advise and consent for presidential nominees, including giving those presidential nominees a vote.
So, those two interests are about to collide here, and I think what Senator McCain is saying is obviously correct. But I would go even deeper to say, it's important that we protect the institution of the Senate and the tools of minority rights because if those are eroded, you will then put the institution on a slippery slope.”