Well, depends on which you think is worse, filibustering of judicial nominees (*not* what the filibustering process was intended for and not what it has been historically used for until recently) or crippling the federal court system by allowing individual people to be essentially refused a confirmation hearing. Nobody's saying that these people should have to be confirmed, just that the should get their chance for an up/down vote. Not only are there a lot of vacancies that hurt BAD, but there are individual people with their lives on a roller coaster because of this. I take issue with the political litmus tests that are driving the filibusters (and the nominees for that matter), but I definitely don't think it's a *good* thing that this is happening, and I don't think it's a bad thing to consider prohibiting it in order to stop it.

That said, in the end I come down on the side that I don't think the rules should be changed, for the record. Qualifying that, I don't think the judiciary should be as politicized as it is, because I don't think they should have as much power as they do. Filibustering is the lesser of the evils for me, but the whole thing is part of a huge evil that I think shouldn't exist in its current form.