Steven L. Taylor, Ph.D. an Associate Professor of Political Science runs an interesting poliblog.
Professor Taylor says,
"Over the last several weeks I have heard a number of individuals make the argument that the filibuster is somehow part of the checks and balances systems of the United States Constitution or that somehow debate is being squelched by the majority party."
Taylor then does a nice smack down of those specious arguments. By reading his blog, I learned a lot about filibusters, the constitutional perspective on the judicial nomination process, and how nominess are moved from committee to the floor for votes. I also learned some history about Senator Byrd and his enthusiasm for changing Senate rules when he was in the majority. Tradition? Pish posh. Seems there is enough hypocrisy to go around this issue, eh?
Bottom line, from Taylor,
"As I have noted before, Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 notes “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings”—as such, the right to dictate how many votes for confirmation strikes me as constitutionally within the hands of the chamber itself.
Therefore, I see nothing in the constitutional design of the federal government that would dictate the way by which the Senate, as a collective institution and part of one of three branches of the federal government, should dispense with its advise and consent role.
Part of the problem is that this debate has become about parties and partisan points of view. However, parties have nothing whatsoever to do with checks and balances, nor with majorities and minorities, but with the relationship between two of the branches of the federal government. As such, there is nothing about the nature of checks and balances that takes into account the balancing of the partisan interests."
If you are like me and need some filibuster 101 training, check out this and this and this.