Republicans are angry that the rules have been changed to allow for a simple majority to decide judicial nominations in the Senate (where that had been the norm for more than 200 years).  Democrats responded:

“Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote”.

“Let’s get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president’s nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who’s in control of the Senate”.

“[W]e can’t find anywhere in the Constitution that says a supermajority is needed for confirmation”.

“I believe [filibustering judicial nominees] is in violation of the Constitution”.

“I will vote to support a vote, up or down, on every nominee. Understanding that, were I in the minority party and the issues reversed, I would take exactly the same position because this document, our Constitution, does not equivocate”.

“Why not allow the President to do his job of selecting judicial nominees and let us do our job in confirming or denying them? Principles of fairness call for it and the Constitution requires it”.

Oh!  Wait!  My bad.  Those are all quotes from Republicans arguing against using filibusters at all to stop judicial nominee votes, made at a time when Bush was President and before there was that 60 vote rule.

Clearly, things are much different today. Because, um … well, there must be some difference. Or else all these Republicans would be flaming hypocrites now, wouldn’t they?