More on filibusters

I am not surprised by this at all... from the American Progress Action Fund's Progress Report:

IN 1997, THE FILIBUSTER WAS NOT AN ATTACK ON FAITH: Brown's omments echoed the theme of Justice Sunday, an event held this weekend by the Family Research Council (FRC) that argued filibustering presidential nominees is an attack on people of faith. Seven years ago the group had a different perspective. In 1998, the FRC strongly supported the use of the filibuster against James Hormel, President Clinton's nominee to be ambassador of Luxembourg, because Hormel was gay. At the time, Steven Schwalm, a senior writer for FRC, said, "the Senate is not a majoritarian institution, like the House of Representatives is. It is a deliberative body, and it's 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."

Oh yeah... and then there is this... Frist has voted for filibusters of judicial nominees in the past. As Jerome points out, the reason they are mad is not because it has never been done before, but simply because the Dems are actually succeeding at it.