[Sandy]

There is absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution that would endorse the idea of the minority imposing new supermajority requirements upon the majority as the democrats in the Senate are doing.

True. But there is explicit endorsement of the idea that the Senate gets to make its own rules--"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings." Text trumps non-text, imo. Bottom line, as much as the filibusters suck, I just don't buy the (author's) argument that they're unconstitutional.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

So if the next session makes the rule that 100% of the senators must vote Yes for an appointee to pass, you're happy with that? Because the Constitution doesn't state that that would be forbidden, so it must be allowable, right?

[VRWCmember]

Bottom line, as much as the filibusters suck, I just don't buy the (author's) argument that they're unconstitutional.

That is why I distinguish between "unconstitutional" and "extra-constitutional". That is also why I think a ruling to clarify the difference between legislation (to which filibuster rules would continue to apply) and Senate confirmations (to which the filibuster process is an abuse of procedure that would be discontinued) is long overdue.