Obama was elected, that carries with it that the public entrusts him with certain privileges. Among them is selecting his executive branch leaders, who are delegated the authority vested in him by that same election. That power has the appropriate check, the Senate capacity to “advise and consent”. That is the power to inspect the choice for, say, the head of the Consumer Protection Agency and approve. The Senate is traditionally expected to approve the President’s choice as a civic courtesy, an expression of respect for the choice the people have made.
The filibuster has an appropriate role as well, it is an expression of extreme dismay, it is, by design, political theater. It is a protest, and is best applied as such, an effort by a minority of Senators to have their views heard and noted. Not, repeat, not a means by which the minority of the Senate may frustrate and veto the majority will.
And this so called “nuclear option” applies only to that small segment of power, the approval of nominees that the President is entitled to make. It does not affect the Senate’s power of the approval of treaties, it does not have a bearing on legislation. It doesn’t even effect a nomination to the Supreme Court!
I have no objection to demonstrations of dismay and even political theater, most of politics is theater, to one degree or another. But the script is already written, and it was written by the consent of the governed.
If Obama decides to stage Hamlet, and the Congress has already approved, it is not the privilege of a minority in the Senate to refuse to cast an actor in the title role.