Ramesh: It should come as no suprise that prior to the last Senate, justices and judges were confirmed with a mere 51 votes. Indeed, Bill Clinton DID get two liberal justices. And I don’t recall ANY Republican, here or elsewhere, urging that Republican opponents filibuster them, or threaten to do so. I don’t believe it ever occurred to them to make such a case. And why? Not mere politics, but fidelity to the Constitution. I don’t believe we take the worst elements of the radical left strategy, spearheaded by Ted Kennedy and breaking with 200 years of history, and adopt them as our own. We can each come up with scores of scenarios in which one side or the other benefits from filibustering judicial nominees, or not. So, with what are we left? We try to determine what the Constitution compels. As you know, when the framers wanted to impose super-majority requirements on Congress, and specifically the Senate, they did so. Did they just happen to overlook judicial nominations? I think not. Unlike judicial appointments, which obviously involve the executitve as the nominating authority, we’re not talking here about wholly legislative functions — such as the Senate creating internal rules for its own operations or the consideration and passage of bills to be presented to the president. As I said earlier, past Senate minorities, of both parties, honored this arrangement, whether in the breach or otherwise. What is enumerated in the Constitution is the Senate’s “advice and consent” power, not a super-majority. I suppose the commerce clause doesn’t explicitly prohibit Congress from passing laws regulating waterflow in toilets either, but it’s a stretch.