2) I read nothing on the CBS link that disproves the point that the Dims' current filibustering is unprecedented. It refers to other procedures the Republicans used to keep some of the Cigarella Man's nominees from getting on the bench, but it doesn't offer any evidence that the Republicans ever did what the Dims are doing this term.
3) If your sources for "reliable" information include Media Matters, what are you doing here on FR?
Look, this whole conversation started when I made the obvious mistake of giving you the apparent source for this thread in response to your request in post 25 to "Please post the source for this ludicrous and fact-free claim. Or admit you made it up". The sources I provided show that neither the letter nor the claims (regardless of their validity) were made up by the person who started this thread or the person who wrote the letter.
In any case, you have now moved the goalposts again to the claim that the "Dims' current filibustering is unprecedented". The fact is, both sides are engaging in a great deal of word-parsing. A Knight Ridder story at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002283969_judges22.html states that "Frist, in his condemnation of filibusters, omitted the fact that he joined an unsuccessful Republican filibuster in 2000 against Clinton judicial nominee Richard Paez". Of course, Frist and other Republicans claim that this doesn't count. Meanwhile, a number of Democrats who are now in favor of the filibuster opposed it when it was to their advantage to do so. It's because of this tendency toward a partisan interpretation of the facts that the Senate would do well to codify the rules as clearly as possible. In any case, this appears to be a moot point at the moment since the two parties have come to a temporary compromise on this issue.