[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Because I recognize that the filibuster is a break against a runaway majority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Appointing minority judges to higher positions is a runaway majority? You make an arbitrary statement here, yet what does it mean? The filibuster is also intended to FORCE dialogue on a topic, yet in this case its being used to RESTRICT dialogue.

[ QUOTE ]
I also recognize that we are moving towards a system where the executive has more power than the other branches and that this is dangerous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
Take the nominiations being sent up for renomination -- the senate rejected the nominees following the rules in place, the president insists on further polarization of the body politic by resubmitting the nominations, and then gets his sycophancts to change the rules to ensure passage.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not at all the case. The judges being filibustered have not been rejected because they haven't even been allowed a vote.

[ QUOTE ]

The consititution does not address, as far as I know, what kind of majority the senate needs to exercise its role.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are specific cases in the Constitution where it demands a supermajority to pass. Otherwise, its a simple majority. At least that has been the practice until these rogue Senators came along. Interesting note, Robert "KKK" Byrd has used loopholes in Senate rules to break filibusters with a simple majority in the past when he was the Democratic leader of the Senate...

[ QUOTE ]
I do see that the role of the senate on nominations is less about advice and consent and more about pushing the President's appointments.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that they are there to either confirm or reject his appointments. Traditionally appointments are confirmed in MOST cases because its granted that the President should have control over his own administration. However, they are certainly there to vote on the appoinments.