Rule No. 1: Play by the rules

Most Americans don't give a rat's behind whether or not Senate Republicans change the rules – exercising what's called the "nuclear option" – by outlawing the use of a filibuster to block judicial nominees. But there's a good reason why everyone should care: It's downright un-American.

I don't mean un-American in the legal sense that it violates the Constitution. I mean un-American in the everyday sense that you don't butt in line at the movies, you don't push your overloaded shopping cart into the checkout line marked "15 items or less," and you don't add extra innings to a game just because it's the bottom of the ninth and the hometown team is losing.

TRENDING: Trump has a pathway to victory in appeal of Facebook ban

If Americans are defined by any one rule, it's this: We play by the rules. Which is exactly what Republican senators, led by presidential wannabe Bill Frist, refuse to do.

Not only that, Frist and other Republicans tell big whoppers, trying to justify their insane, short-sighted and un-American legislative maneuver.

First, because Democrats dared filibuster a handful of President Bush's judicial nominees, Frist has accused them of being "sore losers." Stop right there. He's got it backward. In Bush's first term, the Senate confirmed 208 out of his 218 nominations to the federal bench. Only 10 nominees, the most extreme right-wingers, were stopped by filibuster. Which means Bush got 95 percent of what he asked for.

Now, I don't know about you, but I'd be wearing a big grin if I ever got even 75 percent of what I asked for. If I won 75 percent of the elections I voted in, I'd be on cloud nine. If 75 percent of my tee shots landed in the fairway, I'd join the PGA. If Pat Buchanan agreed with me 75 percent of the time, I'd be dancing in the streets. There's only one thing worse than a "sore loser," and that's a "sore winner." Namely, George Bush and Bill Frist.

Frist also charges that filibusters were never used against judges until Democrats started doing so in the last few years. Big lie. In 1968, Republicans mounted a successful filibuster against LBJ's nomination of Abe Fortas as chief justice. More recently, in the year 2000, Republican Sen. Bob Smith led an unsuccessful filibuster against Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon, two Clinton appointees from California. And – get this! – Smith was joined by none other than Sen. Bill Frist himself. Does Frist have early Alzheimer's? Or does he just think he can lie and get away with it?

Paez and Berzon were lucky, by the way. At least they got to the Senate floor. Over 60 Clinton nominees never made it that far. They weren't even given the courtesy of a vote in the Judiciary Committee by Chairman Orrin Hatch. This happened, of course, before Republicans suddenly adopted their new mantra of "Every nominee deserves an up or down vote." To which should be added: "As long as there's a Republican in the White House."

Finally, Frist insists he's being fair, by wanting to eliminate use of the filibuster only for judges, while retaining it for all other important issues – like transferring manufacture of a new bomber out of Long Island, which Republican Sen. Alfonse D'Amato once filibustered for 23 and a half hours.

Again, Frist has it backward. Other than voting to go to war, reviewing judicial nominees is the most important thing senators ever do. Federal judges, after all, are appointed for life. This is serious business. Judges demand the most careful and most deliberate scrutiny – including the filibuster, if necessary. No Congress should ever merely rubber-stamp judicial nominees of any president.

There is one other rule Americans live by, which is this: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." And that rule applies here, too. After all, when 208 out of 218 judicial nominees are confirmed, the system clearly "ain't broke." It's working just fine. Bush's 10 nominees who didn't make it clearly didn't deserve to make it. He should replace them with more mainstream nominees.

But oh, no. Republicans would rather change the rules. That's now their preferred way of operating. They did it in Florida in 2000. They did it with Terri Schiavo in January. And now they're determined to do it again, with judges. Whenever Republicans can't win by the rules, they change the rules. It's not only an abuse of power. It's downright un-American.