Sen. Harry Reid has now made it clear that the filibusters the Democrats are waging against President Bush's judicial nominees aren't about having time to debate the merits of the judges, but instead are about "checks and balances."

Fine. Honesty is a good thing.

But let's take that "checks and balances" misnomer -- the filibuster is neither a "check" nor "balance" outlined in the Constitution -- a step further. Sen. Reid suggested that the Democrats' intransigence could be repaid in the next Congress. (I thought their intransigence was repaid in the last election when the GOP majority grew and the Democrats lost their leader.)

So let's say that those red staters who have in the past voted for Democrat senators realize that their contempt for the voters wishes -- they elected the president to, among other things, appoint judges -- and the Constitution means that this time they vote for a Republican.

Let's say that the GOP gains 5 more seats in the 2006 midterm election for a total of 60. With only 40 votes, the minority Democrats cannot filibuster anything.

Will the Democrats then demand that the number of votes required for cloture be changed back to 67, as it was in the early 70s? After all, if this is about checks and balances, then Democrats must be able to stop whatever they want.

The Democrats' complaints seem ever more ridiculous as the number of Republicans in the Senate change.