Bravo! Excellent analysis. Tip o' the hat to you.

Either/or?  He's both lazy and part of the problem.  These "two extremes" analysis are pure, unadulterated bs.  It's as if some elements in the media are attempting to moderate the public conception of the GOP by pretending as if the Democratic party is just as far-gone.  We currently have a political party which is now wholly beholden to fringe zealots and the motley collection of cynics, warmongers, and profiteers who are feeding at the public commons like wild boars.  And Mr. Fineman's analysis boils down to nothing more profound than "well, they're rubber, you're glue."  Someone buy this man a clue.

Thanks for reminding us that it is people like Howard Fineman who have done their damndest to bring down the level of public discourse in this country by creating essentially false dichotomies and false categories of political behavior. They are simply shills for the status quo and reactionary political tendencies and their real goal is to create such a degree of disgust about political issues among the populace that many of them conclude that there are no substantive issues at stake. People turn up their noses and walk away from politics. And folks like Fineman go in search of their next victims who are always on the left side of the aisle.

One group is saying there are rules and procedures by which the Senate has agreed to operate, including ways to adjust those rules and procedures when circumstances dictate.

The bottom line is that the Senate sets its own rules, and changes them at will.  If asked, the US Supreme Court will affirm that basic truth.

It's fundamental to the division of powers that the courts not be able to assert rules over the Senate which are not concisely stated in the constitution (they would prevent the Senate from seating three senators from New York, for example).  But this is a territory which the courts stay as far away from as they can.  They're not going to interfere.

From an abstract perspective, there will always be marginally minority opinions in the Senate. How seriously to take them will be a meta-discussion.  However, at some ratio, the minority opinion will lack sufficient support and will lose out to the majority opinion, and the exact mechanism of such loss will be shown basically unimportant. 

I agree completely with DW. I believe the Democrats should acquiesce and assist the Republicans to their own death and destruction. Measures of this type once enacted always come back to the bite the ass of those who were its most ardent proponents.

However, at some ratio, the minority opinion will lack sufficient support and will lose out to the majority opinion, and the exact mechanism of such loss will be shown basically unimportant.

That ratio is 2 to 1. 

This afternoon I heard the pontificating voice of NPR's Juan Williams claim that the Republicans and Democrats on the issue of judicial confirmations are being controlled by the far right and the far left. Does anyone know when did the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA), the Socialist Labor Party, the Rebel Workers or that group led by Bob Avakian seize control of the Democratic Party?

I wasn't aware that folks on the far left were actually allowed to be members of the Democratic Party. Who in the Democratic Party do journalists like Juan Williams consider to be part of the "far left"? Members of the AFL-CIO Executive Committee? The Classroom Teachers' Association? Howard Dean and his supporters? If you honestly regard these folks as being far left cadres then your own politics must lie somewhere to the right of Bill Kristol's.

This is exactly how journalists like Williams and Fineman go about muddying the waters so that folks begin to lose perspective on political issues. If the media tells you often enough that Bill Sweeney, the head of the AFL-CIO, and Howard Dean are part of a far left tendency within the Democratic Party then it becomes easier and easier to divest their views on political issues of any credibility.

This came to me in a flash:

Bob Avakian, or Chairman Bob as he is affectionately called by his followers, is the head of the Revolutionary Communist Party. Bob and his folks, as I recall, were further to the left than the Gang of Four.

That ratio is 2 to 1.

Recall that democracy doesn't work on paper.  The USA was seen as foolhardy by the intelligencia of Europe.  The weakness is that 51% of the people will vote to enslave the other 49%, or various other less drastic examples.

The essence of democracy is a 50%+epsilon  ratio.  Majority rule.

In order to be civil, we need to grant some respect to the minority (if for no other reason than that we all find ourselves in the minority from time to time, if not usually).

So the constitution is very clear about what it takes to change the constitution, basically a 3-1 ratio is required to upset the status quo.   The constitution makes no such statement regarding the rules of the senate.  The senate is constitutionally allowed to set its own rules, and by the nature of democracy, they can set the ratio such that a single vote decides any question.

Now whether they should be so dismissive of the minority is a different question. It's a two way street.

The essence of democracy is a 50%+epsilon  ratio.  Majority rule.

We're not talking about democracy. We're talking about the rules of the Senate...which is no more democratic than my family was when I was growing up.

Why all the talk about whatthe Senate can do? It has already done exactly that...and must do it again, the whole ritual,if they want to change the status quo...just as they did last time.

We're not talking about democracy.

Ok, "democracy" is a broad term.

We're talking about a decision making body whose basic decision process is defined by the constitution.  Each senator gets one vote.  If there is a tie, the vice president of the US can break the tie.  Call that a "majority poll" if you prefer.  That's what the constitution requires. 

The constitution gives this body the right to govern most of its own rules, and by simple majority vote. When majority votes are taken to constrain future sittings of the Senate, such votes are taken with the full knowedge that the basic rule is that 50%+1 can change the rules, no matter what the rules are. 

If the Senate were to change the rules to give the VP ten votes, that would be the kind of thing to get upset about.   If they're dissing the minority, it may be because the minority is overplaying their hand, or it may be because the majority has become arrogant,  rude and insensitive, anywhere in that space.

The constitution gives this body the right to govern most of its own rules, and by simple majority vote.

And they've done that. At the time they did, it was decided that it would take a supermajority of two thirds of Senators to change the rules.

Do you understand that? If you don't understand that voting on legislation is a different issue than voting on the rules and operating procedures of the Senate, it's gonna be along hard slog.

When majority votes are taken to constrain future sittings of the Senate, such votes are taken with the full knowedge that the basic rule is that 50%+1 can change the rules, no matter what the rules are.

No, that applies to voting on legislation. There is no statementin the Constitution at all on how the internal operations, scheduling, etc. of the Senate should run.

Now, do you know a single Senator that is willing to say that the overall cloture rule can be dismissed by majority vote?

And do you recognize that overturning the cloture rule leaves no method of shutting off debate? Because the basic rule, the first rule of debate is:

Standing Rules of The Senate
RULE XIX
DEBATE

1. (a) When a Senator desires to speak, he shall rise and address the Presiding Officer, and shall not proceed until he is recognized, and the Presiding Officer shall recognize the Senator who shall first address him. No Senator shall interrupt another Senator in debate without his consent, and to obtain such consent he shall first address the Presiding Officer, and no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate, which shall be determined without debate.

(b) At the conclusion of the morning hour at the beginning of a new legislative day or after the unfinished business or any pending business has first been laid before the Senate on any calendar day, and until after the duration of three hours of actual session after such business is laid down except as determined to the contrary by unanimous consent or on motion without debate, all debate shall be germane and confined to the specific question then pending before the Senate.

There is no statementin the Constitution at all on how the internal operations, scheduling, etc. of the Senate should run.

Which is a defacto statment that simple majority is sufficient to change the rules.

And do you recognize that overturning the cloture rule leaves no method of shutting off debate? Because the basic rule, the first rule of debate is:

There is no basic rule. There is no God watching, ready to throw lightning bolts if things change for the worse.  There is only the constitution and our collective willingness to respect it.

Well, as a distant second, there is tradition. Maybe we could cite Fiddler on the Roof.

There is no statementin the Constitution at all on how the internal operations, scheduling, etc. of the Senate should run.

Which is a defacto statment that simple majority is sufficient to change the rules.

And the fact that there's no statement in the Constitution about cutting off debate is a de facto statement that Senator Frist cannot cut off debate of judicial nominees or anything else, ever.

Stop being dense,

 There is no basic rule.

Really.

Well there's this nutjob posting comments all over the site that disagrees with you. Why, just a few comments ago, in this very thread, he said this:

When majority votes are taken to constrain future sittings of the Senate, such votes are taken with the full knowedge that the basic rule is that 50%+1 can change the rules, no matter what the rules are.

I'll tell you what, I changed my mind. You can keep being as dense as you like...just stop treating me like I'm dense.

I should have said "there is no constitutional basis for this set of rules regarding debate".

The constitutional rule on decision making is that there are 50 senators, two from each state, and each gets one vote, with the vice president getting one vote in cases of a tie vote.  That's pretty much the end of relevant rules from the constitution.

Any rule beyond that derives its existence from such a decision, and its continued existence from the lack of a reversing decision. 

I should have said "there is no constitutional basis for this set of rules regarding debate".

That's because there's no basic rule, right? Or is there? Did you ever make up your mind about that?

The Constitution says the Senate can make its own rules. They've done so.  The rule is that changing the rules (which can be done by any Senate) requires a 2/3rd majority. The Constitutional basis for the rule is the responsibility of each house to develop their own rules. And there is no limitation on what those rules might be...they could even adopt the kind of reasoning you're pulling out of your hat here.

They just didn't, is all. 

The Constitution has no limitation on any Senator's right to speak. In fact, the House of Representatives has no Constitutional limit on debate either. By your argument, the House should allow filibusters as well.

Keep digging, DW.  Keep thinking I'm stupid.

I have a metaphor that explains the difficulty you're having. It's a machine that can rebuild and redesign itself to fit any circumstance. Unless you break the part that rebuilds the machine, of course. 

 Any rule beyond that derives its existence from such a decision, and its continued existence from the lack of a reversing decision.

Since you recognize the rule hasn't been reversed, and I acknowledged from the first it could be changed, I have no idea what you're arguing about.