Many times in our history we have taken up arms to protect a minority against the tyrannical majority in other lands. We, unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men.

But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends. Historian Alan Bullock writes that Hitler's dictatorship rested on the constitutional foundation of a single law, the Enabling Law. Hitler needed a two-thirds vote to pass that law, and he cajoled his opposition in the Reichstag to support it. Bullock writes that "Hitler was prepared to promise anything to get his bill through, with the appearances of legality preserved intact." And he succeeded.

Hitler's originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions, in modern conditions, are carried out with, and not against, the power of the State: the correct order of events was first to secure access to that power and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal.

RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman released the following statement:

"Senator Byrd's invocation of Hitler's Germany in discussing the duty of U.S. Senators to advise and provide consent on judicial nominees is reprehensible and beyond the pale. While members of the Senate are free to agree and disagree on the issues, this poisonous rhetoric only serves to illustrate the desperation and weakness of Senator Byrd's position."

Byrd claims that the filibusters have to do with allowing debate over the judges, he said, "If we restrain debate on judges today, what will be next: the rights of the elderly to receive social security; the rights of the handicapped to be treated fairly; the rights of the poor to obtain a decent education? Will all debate soon fall before majority rule?"

For one thing, the confirmation process itself provides ample opportunity for debate. Senator Byrd is completely distorting the intent of his party's filibusters. When his party filibusters nominees who would otherwise have the votes necessary to be confirmed—as dictated in the Constitution—it has nothing to do with restraining debate. The President shall nominate judges "with the advice and consent of the Senate." Well, President Bush has done his part, the Senate should do theirs.

Byrd's description of the Republicans threats to use the "nuclear option virtually describe the Democrats using the filibuster to block judges from getting up-or-down votes:

It seeks to alter the rules by sidestepping the rules, thus making the impermissible the rule. Employing the “nuclear option”, engaging a pernicious, procedural maneuver to serve immediate partisan goals, risks violating our nation’s core democratic values and poisoning the Senate's deliberative process.

It is just as easy, and more accurate to say "It seeks to alter the rules by sidestepping the rules, thus making the impermissible the rule. Employing the filibuster, engaging a pernicious, procedural maneuver to serve immediate partisan goals, risks violating our nation’s core democratic values and poisoning the Senate's deliberative process."

The Democrats are the ones sidestepping the rules, avoiding their constitutional duty. Rush Limbaugh pointed out on his show today that "There are seven enumerated instances in which a filibuster is permissible. But judicial nominations, presidential appointments, are not one of them!"

Byrds remarks today were not only offensive, but so grossly distorted through a partisan lens. Employing the "nuclear option" is not stifling debate, its enabling the Senate to do what they are Constitutional required to do.

Bush's nominees will get voted on. One way or another.

UPDATE: Kevin McCullough has more...