BOOM!

Sen. Grumpy is right about one thing -- I don't think most people even realized you need sixty votes to get things done in the Senate. We won't have a Fail Safe maneuver, will we?

TPM et. al. has the coverage. It is limited to nominations (minus Supreme Court, which is a special case and realistically not likely to happen anyway) though some might wish it just ended the process totally.  But, that isn't how change often works, especially in the Senate.  Fifty-two Democrats voted for it (no, Virginia, both sides aren't quite the same)  with Levin, Pryor (conservative state/up for re-election) and Manchin (conservative) opposing the measure.

[ETA: Some think this is just a short term limit. The filibuster will go bye bye generally, perhaps when the Republicans control everything or something. First, as to Supreme Court nominees, it is largely a false issue. It rarely comes up with so few opportunities and pressure to fill one of nine would kick in. See also, "Vince" here providing some excellent reasons why the Supreme Court is different. His overall reply to "mls" is also excellent. Next, there are a variety of ways to make things difficult here. If a President goes "too far," there can be payback.

Finally, yes, it's possible the filibuster just will go away.  This would not imho be horrible. And, it misconstrues history to suggest the filibuster -- an optional rule -- was fundamental to the Senate's "cooling saucer" role anyway. Six year terms, smaller body and state-wide electorates served that role more often. Recent developments aside. It is just unclear how much it helped Democrats during the Bush years on policy either.]

This is a good thing and overuse by the Rs just made it ridiculous at some point. The Constitution sets up certain limited things that require a supermajority vote, but do not believe it is unconstitutional for each branch to set up procedures that do so as a matter of policy. Still, it is strong medicine and can be abused. It has been. The appointment process, as it structurally must be given the parties involved (politicians), has always been somewhat ideological. More so in recent years, especially since the Nixon/Reagan efforts to fill the courts ideologically.  Filibustering is part of this as is the related "hold" or "blue slip" process, which is more local in nature and leads to problems too.

As a matter of principle, filibustering nominations, especially if it results in blockages long term, is to me a bad policy. Full disclosure -- during the Bush years, I supported it as a balance to what I saw as abuses on the other end.  It didn't help that I felt he was elected in a fraudulent manner and then he played hardball in nominations. People challenge this sentiment by citing cases where he did not -- not saying he did a total sham job here.  It is a matter of degree. As is the number of filibusters, the nature of them and the cloture votes needed.  The "both sides" thread, in answer to a skewered analysis, comments on this in certain cases.  Part of this is that recent Republican presidents have in general been more ideological in judicial appointments than Democrats. Degree. 

In hindsight, the value of the filibustering back then is unclear. The Gang of 14 allowed through multiple ideological leaders.  The effort did address somewhat a certain point of time, a certain high point of ideological hardball by President Bush that was part of a wider effort.  Individual cases can be disputed -- Estrada, e.g., is used as a continual martyr and ultimately Thomas B. Griffith filled his spot, but other conservative high points were confirmed.  Democrats losing the Senate also affected things.

Obama is not playing "hardball" in his picks -- he in general picks centrists and if tit for tat made the Liu filibuster fair (still, them come off as babies calling him mean), fine.  In general, however, the two situations are different. The continual practice of Republicans, recently in the D.C. Circuit battles to block three nominations because they didn't want Obama to fill any of the slots, made the move today sensible. If they showed any signs, including whatever "reasonable" voices they have, to brokering some sort of compromise, it's quite possible a few of the 52 senators wouldn't have acted as they did today. Perhaps, we should thank them.

My support of the filibuster of some appellate nominations in the Bush years was at best a compromise among bad options. Unless the President in some fashion is not playing fair, or the nominations are totally bad (even there, some single judge that survives an up/down vote, will not kill us -- the idea of majority rule [as practiced here] is worth it), requiring sixty votes to confirm people is a bad idea. Especially if senators cannot play nice. It is probably a bad idea generally, except in the short term.

So, congrats for a bit of sanity. Things do change, even in the U.S. Senate.