If they ever get their way on this (since I expect them to put forth someone extreme enough for something to trigger a Democratic filibuster attempt) then I would fully expect them to be pushed by their extremist elements to eliminate the filibuster completely for some favorite legislation of theirs that wouldn't pass otherwise.

To hear some of 'em talk, you'd think that the sanctity of an "up or down vote" is so inviolable as to prohibit any bill from ever dying in committee.

why can we make money in other ways in the
football complex their only 6 games of football
that 6 days out of 356 days in the years like
a bands rock country rap we down 10 millions
dollars way can we make money are we dumb all
the time put some thing in the paper
maybe some one in this world will help ok star
ids big paper not small ok help us make money
ok good you aid you are a reporter report some
thing on this ok good

The filibuster, of course, is not established in the Constitution and has changed over time (it used to require a 2/3 vote to break a filibuster). And it has been used for purposes which most Americans today would not condone--such as obstructing civil rights legislation. So the idea that it's a grand and respected tradition is a bit overstated.

As for judicial vs. legislative filibusters, I'd say that because judicial appointment is a power explicitly granted to the President, the use of a judicial filibuster affects the balance of power between the branches of government in a significant way. Legislative filibusters only affect the Senate's own business. Therefore, they can really be considered two different matters, and removing the judicial filibuster would not necessarily lower the barrier to removing the legislative filibuster.

Furthermore, I'd say that the root cause of the legislative battle over judicial appointments is that the judiciary has expanded its power into areas previously controlled by the legislature. But that's a different debate.

But, Eric, what about the president's constitutional authority to nominate people to fill executive branch positions? Should those measures also be subject to a no-filibuster rule?

And the issue is not, finally, whether the filibuster is constitutional--the constitution lets the House and Senate set their own rules, and if any question is a political question surely this is--but whether the point-of-order on the filibuster is appropriate or not. Had Frist--or should Frist--choose to use that tactic, then it would end all supermajority provisions, provided that the right party 'owned' the vice-presidency at the time.

The big issue is that Senate Rules require a 2/3 vote to change the Senate Rules. The Rules provide that it requires 60 votes to end a filibuster. As I understand it, Frist is proposing to change Senate Rules with only 51 votes.

Yes, I'd say that if it's inappropriate for minority in the Senate to filibuster a President's nominee to the judicial branch, it must also be inappropriate to filibuster a President's nominee to his own branch.

But I don't see why eliminating the filibuster for Presidential nominees would necessarily kill all filibusters. There's a clear logical difference between those two types of Senate business. If there's a reason that involves the idiosyncracies of Senate rules & procedures, perhaps you could explain it to me?

Also, I have a big problem with how easy filibusters have become to maintain. When a filibuster required staging an ongoing "debate" to shut down Senate business, there was an obvious physical and political price to be paid by the filibusterers, which nicely ensured the tactic would only be used in extreme cases. Nowadays, Senate Democrats are using threats of filibusters on a regular basis. But again, that's another rabbit trail...

Yes, I'd say that if it's inappropriate for minority in the Senate to filibuster a President's nominee to the judicial branch, it must also be inappropriate to filibuster a President's nominee to his own branch.

But some of the Republican Senators using that argument are not as consistent as you are. They seek to forbid filibusters only with judicial nominees.

Traditionally, judicial nominees were NOT filibustered. Recall Clarence Thomas? Simple majorities have been quite suffecient in the past.

Traditionally, judicial nominees were NOT filibustered.

Traditionally no, but the Republicans saw fit to kill them by refusing to give them a hearing during the Clinton days. I suppose you use whatever political rules and tricks that are available.

During some of the Clinton days. Clinton managed to get a great number of judges appointed. He also managed to fire every federal prosecutor he didn't like. The pity of Clinton is that he set so many low precedents.

Clinton managed to get a great number of judges appointed.

So has GW.