There were *no* filibusters. A filibuster, like those against
antilynching and other civil rights bills, involves keeping the
Senate in continual session for 24/7 oratory, Senators sleeping
on cots in their offices to be there for a quorum call or motion
to end debate, sick and senile Senators (like Thurmond) brought
in on stretchers, etc. There was nothing like that.
>
>We have a Constitution that allows a minority of the population to
>filibuster legislation supported by large majorities. You can rail against
>Democrats for not passing magic wands to make the Constitution go
>away, but it's there.
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about filibusters. The Constitution allows the Senate to make its own rules. At the start of every session the rules are adopted by majority (but usually unanimous voice) vote. Every two years a majority can adopt a rule allowing debate to be ended by simple majority vote (opponents would argue that the Senate is a "continuing body" but the Constitution nowhere says it is and if the Senate's presiding officer, the Vice-President, were to rule that it is not, then only a simple majority of those voting would be needed to uphold the ruling). Crying "filibuster" and giving up, rather than making a full-scale fight on an issue, is proof that a party's "support" for that issue is a mere sham.
Shane Mage
"Thunderbolt steers all things...It consents and does not consent to be called Zeus."
Herakleitos of Ephesos