The right-wing (those who deny science, carry around assault rifles to intimidate people, etc..) certainly seem to be very unhappy with the vote last week to limit the use of the filibuster in US Senate. They claim that it's an unprecedented attack, that the Democrats were irresponsible and will certainly regret their action down the road. They think the Democrats shouldn't have acted this "recklessly" and should have backed down short of this change.
Here's the thing, 10 years ago the Democrats filibustered George W. Bush's nominees. They did so on the merits of the candidates qualifications because Bush put forward some very extreme candidates, yet people like Samuel Alito were approved, so apparently there were those who were even more extreme.
Even if not, the reaction of the Republicans was to do the EXACT SAME THING, to change the filibuster rules. And here's the difference, rather than have the rule changed, the thing the Republicans say that should not have been done - even though they absolutely were going to do so 10 years ago, the Democrats backed down. They "saved" the filibuster in that form and President Bush's nominees got their up or down vote.
If the Republicans were serious, if this wasn't just some grand-standing, belly-aching ballyhoo. If this wasn't simply about being really PISSED about not being able to prevent President Obama's nominees, ANY nominees to certain courts, from being given that same vote. They CLAIM they didn't want appointees for courts where there was insufficient work, yet they (those same Republicans) filled numerous seats on those very SAME courts during Bush's years, including seats on the DC court of appeals. There was no more work then, there's no less now. You can be damned sure that they'd have approved appointments by a President Romney. They gave little thought to "stuffing the court" during Bush's years.
So, if they wanted to save the filibuster.. they could have.
Just like the Democrats DID 10 years ago.
This was a confrontation of their making. A confrontation the Democrats were more accommodating about than were Republicans when the roles were reversed. All they, the Republicans, had to do was to be as accommodating as the Democrats were. Nothing more. But to Republicans, backing down was what they demand of Democrats, but something they NEVER do. They do not compromise - certainly those who say things like the President is not a US citizen, do not compromise Just like they wouldn't compromise to save the filibuster 10 years ago and instead demanded the Dems give in or they'd kill the filibuster, they use their power to the extreme but get really pissed when that same power is then used against them. They do not give in.
Instead, they meltdown in anger, they get out their guns and shout about "2nd Amendment Remedies" and they most certainly do not EVER behave in they way they demand of responsible people. They could have agreed to allow those same up or down votes as did the Dems. The only difference this time is the Democrats decided to not back down again, They expected the same behavior from the Republicans that they themselves were willing to do 10 years ago when they filibustered Bush's nominees 16 or so times - (and the Republicans have, btw, filibustered Obama's nominees more than 400 times).
This is the Republicans problem, and only they are to blame for it.