The Richmond paper has this article describing Virginia's own Senator Allen as a cheerleader, Senator Warner as a holdout, and the ubiquitous Professor Gerhardt from William & Mary as a pundit, on whether to eliminate the filibuster for the judicial nominees.
Whenever I hear the argument that says, don't mess with the filibuster because someday the Democrats will be in the majority again, that makes me think, so this is a reason for Republican restraint? What would the Democrats do if they had 51 votes and one of their own in the White House? The better reason for Republicans not to end the filibuster for judicial nominees is because it is wrong, if it is wrong. I'd like to read Professor Gerhardt's constitutional analysis of the filibuster.