Presumably it must be, since you're comparing what's happening now to something you call obstructionist then, despite the fact that Dems back then merely sought to prevent votes on some appointments rather than stall votes on ANY Conressional business. Funny how those tax and spend Dems were fighting because they REALLY didn't want those people on the bench but it's OK for Richard Shelby to filibuster judicial nominees just because he wants some pork.

Before this descends into another game of "who's the bigger hypocrite?" getting rid of the filibuster (the "nuclear option" no Dem suggested when Bill Frist filibustered judicial nominees in 199 was a bad idea in 2006 when Bill Frist called judicial filibusters "unprecedented" and it still is. Shutting down the US Senate out of spite and/or greed is bad, too, but scrapping the filibuster's not the way to right that wrong. Not only is it wrong in principle, but it's wrong strategically, because sooner or later the worm will turn and you'll want that filibuster back (guess it's a good thing the Republicans didn't "go nuclear" in 2006 or we'd have a MUCH better healthcare bill than we wound up with and this whole argument would be moot. )

It all comes down to the fact that what's sauce for the goose is NOT sauce for the gander, which is pretty sad.