Will someone MAKE these people debate?
I thought the point of filibuster was to stand up and rant and rave for/against your point of view...until someone collapses. Win or lose, why can't this be done? If no debate occurs, how is this different from minority rule?
The procedural facts were well explained on FR a couple years ago, but it's more fun to follow the media lead, and the imopression that the word "filibuster" leaves.
First, let's dispose of the word "filibuster," and instead discuss "agreement to vote on the nominee." How does the Senat move from debate to agree to vote on the nominee? That is the question.
The way that process works is for a Senator to call for the vote. If one Senator objects, there is no vote. All the Senator has to say is, "I object." No big speech, no late nights. Just, "I object." The burden then shifts to the Senator who called for the vote. He (or she) has to get 60 Senators to agree to vote. And here is where the minority, in lockstep, can hold up the vote. They all say, in unison, "I object," or even more simply, "no."
No long speech, no late nights. Just plain, "no." That's how it works. Now, sit back and watch the little impact your new knowledge has on the discussion. The vast majority of posters will persist, "Make them stay up all night! Make them talk! What ever happend to a 'real' filibuster?! Will someone MAKE these people debate?"