...Yesterday it was opposed to filibusters. Seven years ago, it was in favor of them. Thats when Clinton and a then-Democratic plurality in the Senate wanted a man named James Hormel to become the ambassador to Luxembourg. Hormel, of the Spam and other meats Hormels, was gay, as the Senate minority bottled up Hormels nomination with filibusters and threats of filibusters, minority relative to cloture, to breaking up a filibuster.
They did that for a year and a half. The Family Research Councils senior writer, Steven Schwartz, appeared on National Public Radio at the time and explained the value, even the necessity, of the filibuster.
The Senate, he said, is not a majoritarian institution, like the House of Representatives is. It is a deliberative body, and its got a number of checks and balances built into our government. The filibuster is one of those checks in which a majority cannot just sheerly force its will, even if they have a majority of votes in some cases. Thats why there are things like filibusters, and other things that give minorities in the Senate some power to slow things up, to hold things up, and let things be aired properly.
Hypocrites! I had the video, but it got fried.
There's a Diary on Kos: by lawstudent922 framing the same issue.