One reason senators of both parties liked the ability to filibuster judicial appointments was because it allowed them to have it all ways.  The could tell the party whip they would vote "aye" on a controversial nominee- pleasing party activists in the process- secure in the knowledge that their vote would not come back to haunt them in a general election because the other party would effectively filibuster the nominee.  Often the controversial nominees wouldn't even make it out of committee.  Now, as with the passage of Obamacare, every Senate vote in favor of a controversial judicial nominee could be the deciding vote with future reelection implications.   This has the potential to open up a huge can of worms in what has often been a courtesy approval of federal judges to sit in other Senator's states and federal appellate districts. A nomination deemed dead on arrival because of a filibuster often wasn't considered "score-able" by advocacy groups....(Read Full Post)