Just One

I am watching the Senate debate Judge Owens' nomination to the circuit court.

The Democrats are talking.

I am not hearing a single argument that is not a logical fallacy, or simply hypocritical.

Some examples:

• It's tradition.
  No, it's not. Never until GW Bush has any judge with majority support in the Senate ever been successfully filibustered, and only rarely has it ever been attempted. Further, filibusters were not a part of the Senate when it started in the 1700s, and
  
  
• The GOP is saying the filibuster has never been used before, but that is clearly false.
  It is also false that the GOP is saying that.
  
  
• The GOP filibustered some Clinton appointees.
  Granted, though unsuccessfully, because many Republicans refused to participate, even though they voted against the nominees. And at the time, most of the Democrats said it was wrong to filibuster judges, and some of them -- including Kennedy and Kerry -- even tried to abolish the filibuster altogether, not just for judicial appointees.
  
  
• The GOP has blocked Clinton appointees in many other ways.
  None of which are relevant, not being filibusters.
  
  
• The Senate is supposed to check and balance the power of the President to nominate judges.
  And removing the filibuster would in no way change that fact.
  
  
• The GOP will violate the rules of the Senate to remove the filibuster.
  False.
  
  
• Some of these judges are extreme.
  So vote against them. This is not an argument for the filibuster, but against the judges.
  
  
• The Constitution doesn't say the Senate minority cannot use the rules of the Senate to prevent confirming a judge.
  The Constitution also doesn't say the Senate can't change its own rules.
  
  
• Special interests are controlling the agenda!
  On both sides, yes.
  
  
• They are lying!
  You're lying.
  
  

And so on. Am I missing an actual good argument in there?