Politics is politics. No different than agreeing to vote for a health care bill because you get 300 million in pork for your state.

That being said, I wish to reiterate that I think what Shelby is doing is wrong. I just don't see any huge moral difference in the reasons. It's wrong regardless to disallow an up or down vote. If you think someone is wrong for a job, convince 50 of your colleagues.

Is filibuster wrong (should the health care bills be allowed to pass on a straight majority vote), or did you mean 40 of your colleagues?

I don't agree. It's a matter of motives. I may not agree with the reasons a Senator may object to a person being nominated, but I can respect his or her right to do if the objection is policy based. But we are talking about a Senator who has put a hold on ALL nominations; not because he has a policy disagreement with them, but because he is using it to extort pork for his state. THAT is an abuse of office, imo.

Filibustering is not wrong whatsoever and it is quite constitutional.

The "filibuster" of nominees, however, is typically done in committee by refusing to allow them to be voted on in committee, which prevents them from coming to the Senate floor for a vote. That is what I believe to be wrong. That being said, though, how is it that Shelby has the power to do that...I would suspect he isn't the committee chair nor do the republicans have the majority on that committee? I suppose I haven't read enough up on it.

Is it any more an abuse of office than voting for health care because your state gets certain exemptions or 300 million in pork? That would be said to be a senator looking out for the interests of their constitutents. I don't see a different iexcept that it's a new level of blocking nominees, and I don't support blocking nominees from a floor vote. If the nominee is so offensive, one would hope they couldn't get a simple majority.

edited to add:
OK, so I understand a bit more.....from a story I read -

This definitely raises the stakes and is stupid. I don't know what "time consuming" means, but I would suppose even a couple hours per nominee would indeed result in a lot of consumption of time. I would suspect the unanimous consent vote can be overcome by a rules change, but I have no idea what that would entail. Shelby needs to grow up, but I would again state that this is no different than any other hostage holding or vote buying with district bribes that take place in any bill. It does indeed come at it from a different and dangerous angle, though, basically allowing one senator to control the process. I would bet a rules change can and should prevent this in the future.

That's incorrect. You can't filibuster in committee. All a hold is, is an announcement that should the Senate leadership attempt to bring a nominee (or anything else, holds aren't unique to nominations) to a floor for debate the person placing the hold will object to the unanimous consent decree which establishes the terms and duration of debate. In other words, the person placing the hold will filibuster creating a need for a vote on cloture which will require 60 votes to pass and add several days to the process for each nominee even if that happens.

As an example, Joseph Greenaway. Nominated by Obama to the Third Circuit on June 18, 2009. Passed out of committee unanimously on October 1, 2009. Still waiting to be brought to the floor of the full Senate due to an anonymous hold.

As another example, Jane Stranch. Nominated by Obama on October 21, 2009. Passed out of committee 15-4 on November 19, 2009. Still waiting to be brought to the floor of the full Senate due to an anonymous hold.

The rules change would be to get rid of the filibuster. All a hold is, is an announcement (public or not) of intent to filibuster. When faced with a hold the majority leader can do two things:

1. Try to wait until the hold is removed.
2. Bring forth the unanimous consent decree and hope the hold was a bluff. If it was not things go into a whole new limbo which is why they try to avoid starting the process if there's a hold on things.

Also, by generally accepted interpretations of Senate rules, changing the rule would require 60 votes. How likely is the minority (either minority) to give up that power willingly?

Right - I got the hold thing down after I read something and edited a post. However, it is also possible for a committee - such as the judicial committee - to hold up a vote with only a simple majority of the committee and not release the nominee for a vote. A committee chair can also refuse to schedule the nominee for a committee vote. This practice has been somewhat common. That's why I put the filibuster in the earlier post in quote. It's not a real filibuster, but is often more effective and allows a smaller group of senators, or even the committee chair, to stop a nominee from going to the floor.

I suppose I might need a government 101 class (maybe this is 200 level), but that's how I think it works frequently.

Quick correction, a rules change requires 67 votes (though some parliamentarians think there are ways around that).

May I assume you are referring to Ben Nelson? I find his actions just as reprehensible. I don't give someone a pass just because they have a "D" after their name.