[Brett66]

I would think Frist would at least push for a real fillibuster after this fiasco, but he seems to be content on letting judges be denied a vote on the threat only.

[Kenny Bunkport]

I would think Frist would at least push for a real fillibuster after this fiasco

I think we'd all want that, but to my understanding a "real" filibuster would also require a rule change in the Senate, and 60 votes to accomplish it.

[maryz]

I would think Frist would at least push for a real fillibuster after this fiasco,

Someone explained on a thread yesterday that they used to do real filibusters under the "old" rule that required 2/3s of senators present and voting for cloture -- i.e., everyone had to stick around watching for a propitous time to invoke cloture. The rule was changed (under the Dems, those respecters of hallowed Senate traditions) to require 3/5s of the Senate, 60 votes, meaning in this case that Dems could go on, one by one, forever and only the Republicans would all have to be there trying to snag the extra Dem votes.

I hope I explained this right.

[j_tull]

Thanks Brett. I've posted this phrase a dozen times, with no takers, "Can anyone explain why we don't make them ACTUALLY filibuster?" 7th grade civics: Make them keep talking, when they can't go any more, they yield the floor. The chair calls for a vote. No rule changes required. Nothing's getting done anyway, WTF?