Phil A. Buster - A fair man or not?

Sen. Bill "I diagnose by videotape!" Frist M.D. has argued that judicial nominees deserve an "up or down" vote. He says it's the decent, fair and honest thing to do. That judicial nominees of the president deserve that courtesy. If that's the case then why even have hearings in the Judiciary Committee in the Senate? What's the point if they all deserve an "up or down" vote on the Senate floor. For that matter why even have a Judiciary Committee? Why don't we just send a presidential judicial nominee straight to the floor the day after the President announces it? And why limit this fairness and decency only to judicial nominees? Shouldn't every bill proposed by a Senator deserve an "up or down" vote? Do Senators and bills that affect millions of people deserve less fairness than one judicial nominee? How about all those civil rights bills in the 50s and 60s killed through the filibuster? Are civil rights laws less important than one judge's elevation to the federal bench? The committee system and filibusters are as old as the Senate. And not only did Republicans and some racist Democrats filibuster Justice Abe Fortas in 1968 but Sen. Bill "I'm a doctor but diagnose through t.v." voted to filibuster Clinton nominee to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Paez on March 8, 2000 after conservatives in Congress held up the nomination for more than four years. You can't make this stuff up.