Filbusters of judicial nominees are unconstitutional. While I’m scared to death about who Obama will appoint, elctions have consequences and all we can hope for is that all Republicans vote no.
Well, maybe. But the Dems started the street fight. Repubs have been too "civil" (cowardly?) to bloody their knuckles, and we all live with the results.
If a filibuster is what it takes to even things up a bit, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Otherwise, the actions of Democrats for decades will continue to have no adverse consequences for them.
What is your authority for stating that such filibusters would be unconstitutional? Not that I am disputing you, you probably are right. I would just like to know your authority for your statement.