I would like somebody to explain to me how filibusters are unconstitutional. There is nothing in the constitution that governs the length of debate in the senate. (Check it out yourself.. http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html) The 60 votes needed to end debate is a senate rule and senate rules require a supermajority of 67 votes to change. This simple majority "nuclear option" stuff is nonsense and can only occur because the senate has no oversight. (The Parlimentarian opposes it for Gods sake). And for it to be unconstitutional for judicial nominations but not for anything else?!? Here's the actual text of the advise and consent clause. "Advise and consent" is kind of vague, and given the preceding sentence, you could take it to mean a two thirds majority being that "advise and consent" for treaties is spelled out to mean exactly that.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
No Senate can bind a future Senate, look it up.
Nonsense? LOL!
"The voice of the majority decides. For the lex majoris partis is the law of all councils, elections, etc., where not otherwise expressly provided." --Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800. ME 2:420
Jefferson compiled his Manual of Parliamentary Practice during the course of his four-year vice-presidency. He designed it to contain guidance for the Senate drawn from "the precepts of the Constitution, the regulations of the Senate, and where these are silent, the rules of Parliament." To broaden his understanding of legislative procedure, Jefferson studied noteworthy works on the British Parliament such as John Hatsell's three-volume Precedents of Proceedings in the House of Commons (1785), Anchitell Grey's ten-volume edition of Debates in the House of Commons (1769), and Richard Wooddeson's three-volume A Systematical View of the Laws of England (1792, 1794). The resulting Manual, loaded with references to these British parliamentary authorities, contained fifty-three sections devoted to such topics as privileges, petitions, motions, resolutions, bills, treaties, conferences, and impeachments.
Of course there is no provision in the Constitution for a minority to reject presidential nominees. A majority of the the Senate can allow them, or not.
Now the election comes and the Senate is now 51 Republicans, 49 Democrats. They have efectively given themselves veto power over any rule change. And I won't go into all the mischief they could have made in the rules prior to their loss of majority.