Jackson Jambalaya

The filibuster had it's place when both parties used it for principled rather than political reasons.
Just tracking the amount of times it's been used over the history of our country and the reasons for past use compared to recent use is telling.
There haven't been any " Mr Smith Goes to Washington" filibusters since both parties have forgotten they are elected to serve all the people rather than to promote their party.
When a President, be it Bush or Obama, can't appoint people to functionary positions in the executive branch and lower court appointments, that is not balancing power, that is attempting to make the executive branch ineffectual and the courts inefficient.
Only when the appointee is clearly not qualified should the filibuster be used.

Good Lord the naivete of 8:36. The filibuster has always been used for political reasons.

I got as far as "naked power grab." There are political clichés aplenty, and then there are godawful politico-journalese clichés like "naked power grab." I cannot take the author seriously. Not that he cares, but I can always hope.

It's worth pointing out that Senator Roger Wicker brokered a deal to confirm CFPB Director Richard Cordray in order to "save the filibuster." Fast forward a few weeks, and Wicker doesn't have the filibuster (imagine that - Reid lied.) And he assisted the Reid in propping up the most powerful government agency in the country -- an agency free from Congressional oversight and appropriations. Strategic idiocy.

I am unsurprised that the author finds it necessary to pay for distribution of his column.

KF might want to make it even more obvious that it's not his own writing; one could think, reading the above-the-fold part, that KF was leading up to something Wilson wrote.

Who's writing is it? I followed the links all the way to the end of the article and there's Cory Wilson's name.

8:48 am
We have become accustomed to the idea that all politics is unprincipled. Perhaps I should have used the word " purposeful" or " meaningful" might would do.
It's one thing to filibuster an appointee because you think that the person is unfit or ideologically extreme and quite another to do it to prevent a President from appointing agency and staff positions where fitness is the problem of the administration and ideology isn't relevant.
It is a plain as the nose on your face that the purpose has been to weaken a duly elected Presidency and weaken government.
And, that sir or madam, is not principled. It flies in the face of what a democracy means.
And, it's difficult to justify a filibuster when it is known in advance that it will serve no purpose other than to cause internal conflict. When you know it will not only fail but gain nothing, it's not principled.
And, if you can find an example of a first term senator filibustering, let me know.
I'm not the one who is naïve!