I thought this post over at Volokh.com was as concise a synopsis that I've found on the subject. This site is a compliation blog of some of the nation's top legal minds and always very interesting. I'll post an excerpt and link.

The filibuster is the newest means deployed to block judicial nominees, and effectively imposes a supermajority requirement for judicial confirmation. Prior to the election of President Bush, it had never been used by a Senate minority to prevent confirmation of a judicial nominee enjoying majority support. The one nominee ever filibustered before, Justice Abe Fortas, was opposed by Senators from both parties, lacked majority support, and eventually resigned from the bench under an ethical cloud. It is most certainly not a precedent for the filibusters we have seen for the past few years.

Volokh.com

The filibuster has been used by the legislative branch of government since the inception of our government.
It gives opposing members a chance to stall ALL legislation until a compromise can be worked out on the given issue.As such,I think that filibustering can play an important part in bringing the opponents together to search for a reasonable compromise in order to get the whole system back up and working.
It's a radical idea,yes,but is not done lightly or too often.And it forces two entrenched opponents to sit down and negotiate a solution to the subject at hand.

The filibuster was not initially part of the Senate rules. During a revision of rules and reprinting of those rules in 1806, through an omission of how and when the majority could end debate, the filibuster was born.

Since then it was tolerated as a means to keep the majority from stopping debate, but it was never meant to stop deliberations themselves. The Senate is oft touted as the world's "Greatest Deliberative Body" not the world's greatest non-deliberative body.

Now the history of the filibuster is actually fairly poor as it most famous uses was by the Democrats in the 20s and 30s to block anti-lynching laws and then in the 50s and 60s to block civil rights legislation.

Where it is supposed to extend debate, it is almost always used to obstruct; witness Tom Daschle and his current unemployment.

As for the "judicial" filibuster, the initial post of this thread spells that out already. The Democrats have tried to defend their actions on the premise that the Republicans have done the same thing but that isn't true. Not even close to being true.

If this confuses anyone, just follow the link. The information didn't just come to light but if one is getting their news on this stuff from the usual suspects, this will come as an epiphany of sorts.

For more good reading and a good historical context of just how out of line the Democrats are right now, consider this:

Imagine, if you will, that a Democrat President nominated a judge whose constitutional and policy views were, by any measure, on the extreme left fringes of American society.

. . . And, to get really absurd, let’s add that he had called for an end to single-sex prisons on the theory that if male prisoners are going to return to a community in which men and women function as equal partners, prison is just the place for them to get prepared to deal with women.


Whelan On NRO

Great post Airwing couldn't have gotten it better.

As I have heard from both sides over and over -- both sides are wrong.

Looks like the threat of filibuster is gone.They decided to play like adults and work it out.Now if they could get down to the Business of the Nation and deal with the Supreme Court nominations,military budgets,defecits,National Security,etc.etc...

We will see how long that working together last