Sèe #34
Thanks for your reply. You are right. As mentioned in my earlier post, the filibuster began as a means to stop the passage of bills. Its original purpose was not to forcefully require a super majority to pass anything -- certainly not presidential appointments. Somewhere along the way over the last 50-60 years, the filibuster became warped beyond all reason. The way it's practiced today is just absurd and, yes, unconstitutional.
The unfortunate thing, however, is that it is a senate rule. So in that narrow sense the filibuster is not unconstitutional. But, as a rule and not something specifically enshrined in the Constitution, the filibuster can be changed or eliminated easily unless the current rule is written to require a super majority vote to change it. The way the filibuster is practiced today is truly terrible, and I would say that even if the Democrats were in the majority.