If Slate published it, it supports their world view, regardless of who wrote it. Witness your citation of it to "refute" my point about the relative merits of the large block of filibusters versus the individual counter examples cited by the demonrats. I acknowledge your point, that Paez was approved by a majority, but I will not relinquish the larger issue of demonrats raping the constitution by mounting an unprecedented en mass filibuster.
Slate has published quotes from both Ronald Reagan and Jesus Christ. I obviously don't disagree with either of them in the general case, in the abstract, but I reserve the right to question the use of their writings for evil purposes.
And Mickey Kaus ain't no Ronald Reagan and he sure isn't in the same universe as Jesus Christ.
I'm not familiar with Slate's worldview. I am familiar Kaus, probably because he was linked by someone at NRO or Reason as a reference. Kaus' link happened to be the first usable result at Google.
Regardless, my point is that pubbies did the same thing to at least two of Clinton's nominees, Paez and Berzon, for about four and two years, respectively, by denying to vote for cloture and keeping debate open. It's not a filibuster.
I am hardly agree with what the dems are doing, but anyone who says that what the dems are doing is unprecedented is either ignorant or full of BS.