[Cboldt]

Thanks for closing the loop on that. The GOP used filibuster vs. Fortas to delay a vote (for what, days? weeks?), but eventually broke ranks and permitted an up or down vote.

That would make the present situation un-precedented, where a political party that comprises a minority in the Senate uses the filibuster (doesn't break ranks) to prevent an up or down vote.

But, PKM argues that the rule permitting this should not be changed. If it's a good rule, then one shouldn't complain because the "other side" used it.

I'm not sure what your position is with resepct to "the cloture rule" (or "the rule to break the requirement for unanimous consent to have an up-or-down vote"), but you seem to say that this unprecedented move by the DEM party should not be permitted to stand. The solution you propose is to install a GOP supermajority. I'd like to see a conservative supermajority in the Senate too. But I hope that is not the only solution. That is, I'd like to see the rule changed -- or at least discussed further. Maybe Estrada bowing out is the spark that will ignite a serious discussion for rule change.

[Dane]

Thanks for closing the loop on that. The GOP used filibuster vs. Fortas to delay a vote (for what, days? weeks?), but eventually broke ranks and permitted an up or down vote

Jah dude, back then(1966) the GOP had what 33 or 34 members in the Senate, the demos have 49 now and they threw out 200 years of Senate precedant, for their own petulant reasons.