Robert Novak says the stage is set for the fight over judicial nominations.

A scenario for an unspecified day in 2005: One of President Bush's judicial nominations is brought to the Senate floor. Majority Leader Bill Frist makes a point of order that only a simple majority is needed for confirmation. The point is upheld by the presiding officer, Vice President Dick Cheney. Democratic Leader Harry Reid challenges the ruling. Frist moves to table Reid's motion, ending debate. The motion is tabled, and the Senate proceeds to confirm the judicial nominee -- all in about 10 minutes.

All of this depends on what politicians and pundits are calling the "nuclear option" - changing Senate rules so that filibusters can be broken with 51 votes. Opponents predict that the nature of the Senate will change forever if such an option were used. Novak says that bull because Robert Byrd has already used the option.

...Byrd "developed four precedents that allowed a simple majority to change Senate procedures governing debate without altering the text of any standing rule." In each case, Byrd successfully overcame dilatory tactics by the Republican minority.

But even that isn't really necessary. I still insist, and will continue to insist that making Democrats hold an actual filibuster is the answer. A filibuster used to mean that the filibustering party needed to hold the Senate floor. They would stand up there and talk and talk and talk, refusing to yield the floor to anyone else. All Senate business stopped until the filibuster was resolved or broken.

If the Dems want to filibuster judicial nominees, that's fine. But the GOP should make them put their money where their mouth is. If they're going to be obstructionists, let them stand up there and show America what's really going on.

It's time for the days where politicians can filibuster without actually filibustering to end. Or perhaps Republicans consider that the real nuclear option.