It was pretty ill-defined, insofar as it was primarily a negotiating tactic to get Priscilla Owens and Janice Rogers Brown to the bench. I don’t think it was given consideration. I think McCain did some fine work in building a path to the nominations of Roberts and Alito, which was the focus more-so than preserving the filibuster.

I still disagree that judicial nominees (or political appointments generally) should be subject to filibuster, though I favor the filibuster’s existence and use in other instances.

But at least I’m not a shill for a president who is destroying the country.

I guess you can’t use the google, the bing, the dictionary, the wikiepdia, the ask, the yahoo, or the library in a discussion. You can only use the-make-stuff-up-as-I-go-and-be-a-petty-whiner-when-challenged. For brevity, let’s call that “the Willy.”

At least we can agree on ONE term.

Tell that to Abe Fortas.

“I define a a modern liberal as a statist who also favors the ideal of moral license.”

Is there anyone else on planet earth that accepts your definition? Words have meanings other than the ones you make up as you go along.

As for why the filibuster has a history of usage in the U.K. and U.S., that seems kind of obvious, doesn’t it? You cannot filibuster a King. And although I have not (and will not) research the historical instances of filibustering, remember that it is an idea before it is a word – indicative of stalling legislation by parliamentary maneuver. Just because it has not been called a “filibuster” and does not have the technical aspect connoted by the modern word, does not mean that tactics have not been used throughout history under different governmental structures.

Finally, from your linked article
“Lieberman, of course, is a shell of his former self, and now embraces the tactic he once denounced. ”

See? Do you think any politician has a serious problem with filibustering when it is for their cause? Of course not. It’s clear that both sides embrace the filibuster when opportunistic, and throughout American history, have indeed.

Finally, the reason Conservatives were outraged at Democrats way back when is because they used filibuster to stall voting on judicial NOMINEES. In other words, delay appointments until after the election so that the President could not put ideological allies on the court. This seems to me unconstitutional. The President has an express duty to nominate people to the bench, and the Senate can inform, and ultimately vote up or down – they cannot refuse to vote. THAT procedure was UNPRECEDENTED. I don’t understand why this is so hard to understand.

The filibuster dates back to Rome. But can find no evidence that it is used extensively (or at all) in governments throughout the world. It is only a factor in politics in the US and UK. In fact, a quick google doesn’t turn up any references to use of the filibuster in Europe, outside of the UK and France. The first real filibuster in the US was in 1830, long after the founding. It’s something I’ve never looked into before, so I may have missed something.

There has been extensive debate on the point. There is no reason to belive that a modern government needs a filibuster. A few minutes research will reveal that people support abolishing the filibuster who are not ignoramuses and not making frivolous arguments:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_12/021431.php

There is nothing ignorant about calling for the abolition of the filibuster. It’s just a position that you don’t share.

Abolish the filibuster to get health care reform passed, with the understanding that Republicans might control the Senate again someday and we would get some more right-wing judges on the Supreme Court and other courts.

Health care reform in exchange for Chief Justice Ann Coulter.

That’s a price that some liberals said they’re willing to pay–which tells you how much they want that health care reform passed.