[steelhead_trout]

"The framers, however, did not intend to let the minority prevail as a general rule. They did require a super-majority vote to approve treaties, override presidential vetoes and pass constitutional amendments. Had they wanted to require 60 votes to confirm judges, they knew how to do it." Salient point.

[GeronL]

They also never intended judges to have so much power.

[C210N]

It may be salient, but still, the current situation smacks of opportunism. Consider the left stymies Conservative judges when they can’t appoint (Shumer being one of the worst offenders) and push thru communists when they can. It’s the marxist ratchet effect. They invented the concept of Borking.

[itsahoot]

The old rules still apply to other matters.

Idiot completely overlooks the real problem, a simple majority of one can now change the Senate Rules any time they want. That simply means there are no rules.

[Principled]

And it applies only to executive and non-Supreme Court judicial nominations. The old rules still apply to other matters.

LOL. It will be changed soon to include supremes. Hopefully it will happen after we have a real president and senate.

He or she can undo some of 0bama's damage using 51 [see dc circuit], change the rule to include supremes, get one or two of those, then change it to 60 AND make rule changes need 60.

[Political Junkie Too]

The Framers also meant for debate to actually be a debate; that it actually changed minds and swayed thought of the undecided.

Today, "debate" is a formality. It is nothing more than speech-making and preening for the cameras as they march towards predetermined party-line votes in support of national special interest agendas.

-PJ

[gleeaikin]

The true filabuster is probably still available. That is where a person actually stands up for hours and hours and talks about the issue (and lots of other stuff), but in recent years all they did was threaten a filabuster and then the other side would fold.

[BfloGuy]

Had they wanted to require 60 votes to confirm judges, they knew how to do it." Salient point.

Well, I don't know.

The founders designed the Senate as a bulwark against the appropriation of too much federal power. The Senators were to be appointed by their respective state legislatures and, thus, owe their allegiance to the states.

That was changed by the constitutional amendment of 1917 which was the Progressives' attempt at "democratizing" it. Though sometimes annoying, the filibuster, at least, did prove to be somewhat of a moderating force in that march towards democratization.