[aristeides]

I looked up Foras' brief bio on an on-line almanac site, and I think the differentiation is this: Fortas was already on the Supreme Court. The filibuster was on his appointment as Chief Justice.

I don't see why that should make any difference. The Senate was there using the same constitutional advice-and-consent power that is at work in the Estrada matter. If it's legally wrong to filibuster Estrada's appointment as circuit court judge, I do not see why the filibuster of Fortas's elevation was not equally illegal.

[Political Junkie Too]

I'm certainly no expert on the matter, but I'd see a big difference between someone not on a court at all being appointed to a court, and someone already on the court being named the Chief of the court.

Conversely, someone not on the court being blocked for appointment to a court, and someone on a court being refused leadership of the court but still staying on the court.

-PJ