Democrat[s] have [engaged in] unprecedented filibusters of qualified nominees to the lower courts and the adoption of a results-oriented confirmation standard for the Supreme Court.

I say to my Democrat colleagues--is this really the path you want to put us on? You have already dramatically increased the chance of future filibusters. Do we really want Senators to vote against any nominee who will not prejudge cases and guarantee results? I know that the most ideological activists on both sides of the spectrum would prefer that path, but do you? Does the Senate? Does the Nation?

As I said, for now this is a Democrat problem. But it is naive to think that, someday, Republicans won't decide that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. And while your ``no'' votes on Judge Alito will not keep him from the Supreme Court, I say to my Democratic friends--what if President Bush had lost the 2004 election but there were 55 Republicans in the Senate? If Republicans today were applying your results-oriented, litmus-test-based standard to a Democrat President's nominees, would it be possible to confirm anybody even vaguely as liberal as Ginsburg or Breyer. If we followed your path, the answer would clearly be ``no.'' This is a terribly dangerous road to travel.

(Emphasis supplied.) Today, Kyl re-takes that road. I hope this signals once and for all the end of Senatorial deference to Presidential judicial appointments.

Speaking for me only