[Cboldt]

... are you suggesting Miguel Estrada was not filibustered the half dozen times he failed to clear cloture due to repeated "informational requests"?

Negative.

Only that the terms "filibuster" and "cloture" are not tied at the hip. Sometimes cloture is used to delay or deny taking the vote. If that is the case, then it is filibuster. I am sure that was the case with the cloture votes for judicial nominees in 2003 & 2004, and I am sure that is the case with the Bolton nomination, yesterday.

But sometimes cloture is used for its intended purpose, which is to control the amount of debate. It is improper use of parliamentary procedure to use cloture to kill a matter, but it is NOT ALWAYS improper to deny cloture.

It depends on the reason for hanging fire on taking the vote. If the reason is purely to prevent the body of the Senate from giving its "advice & consent," then blocking the vote is a filibuster.

If, on the other hand, the reason for wanting more debate is to help the Senator make up his mind, or if the Senator had something to say to the others, but was denied the opportunity to say so, then voting NAY on cloture is appropriate. Cloture is intended to permit all sides to be heard before taking the vote. It is emphatically NOT to avoid altogether, taking the vote.

[TeleStraightShooter]

Ok, I follow what you talking about - the intent of the filibuster - {we could extrapolate that onto what differentiates a crime from a hate crime, but I digress}.

I should have clarified myself prior; Bolton and Estrada were both formally filibustered because they failed to clear cloture.

As for the intent of Bolton's filibuster, if I was a betting man, I would put my money on the (D)s intent to kill the nomination, disguised as a fishing expedition...

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Can you drop that link to the Harvard Gold/Dipple document on the Filibuster history on here?

And there is this link:

Filibusters ... The original Talk Shows