The history of the filibuster is that for most (but not all) of the last two centuries it has been used in the Senate on LEGISLATION. (The House also had a tradition of unlimited debate at the beginning, when it was a small body about the size of the Senate.)
But the history of the Senate shows that regular use of the filibuster against judicial nominees is a creature of the 21st century only. For the two centuries prior to that, the Senate almost always -- in ten thousand instances -- did not apply the filibuster to judicial nominees, but instead affirmed them by majority vote only. This is the inconvenient fact that Yglesias, and other bigots like Senator Harry Reid, deliberately ignore when the speak or write on this subject.
NO ONE is suggesting ending the filibuster concerning legislation. In his pervasive dishonesty, this writer sets up and then attacks a straw man. For a much more honest appraisal of this situation, click below.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "Billybob's Speech for FR's March for Justice II"
Actually Matthew Yglesias "is suggesting ending the filibuster concerning legislation" whether honestly or not it is hard to tell. IMHO if Senate Democrats are dumb enough to follow his advice, Republicans should simply put the matter to a majority vote. It might not get 51 votes, but it would certainly get more Republican than Democrat votes; in fact I'd be surprised to see even one Democrat, including the one who first suggests it, actually voting for it. Thus, having called the DEMOCRATS' bluff, Republicans could move on to their much narrower proposed filibuster limitation.