[AFPhys]

From that same article:

...Are those who (like myself) have found the filibuster justified by the Constitution’s express grant to the Senate of rule-making power over its own proceedings making the same analytical error for which Lincoln chastised Taney? I think the answer is "Yes."

Could the Senate, for example, make a rule that said: “the Senate will only consider presidential appointments in even-numbered years”? After all, the Senate may make its own rules and, as with the filibuster, there is nothing in the Constitution that expressly says such a rule is impermissible. But of course, such a rule would have the effect of grinding government to a halt. ...
(more)
Clearly, there must be some objective limits to the Senate’s authority despite the fact that the clause granting it rule-making power does not expressly admit of any. What should our guiding principle be in determining what those limits are? I believe they ought to be (and in fact are) those points at which the Senate’s powers intersect with the powers of the coordinate branches. That is, the Senate may make rules that control any matter over which it uniquely exercises legitimate authority. Beyond that, its rules must yield to the enumerated powers of the other branches."



This man saw the light. You really should read the whole article for his full argument, as reading it disjointedly renders it incomplete.

[lugsoul]

Because his last position agrees with yours, he "saw the light." The very existence of this article proves that a solid argument exists that the filibuster of nominees is constitutional. Even McCarthy can argue both sides of it.

Even Frist can take both sides of it.

And DiFi has taken both sides of it.

Hmmmm... Strange how so many now are certain that it is violative of the Constitution.