Democracy Held Hostage

From the c-span.org site:

A Filibuster is the term used for an extended debate in the Senate which has the effect of preventing a vote. Senate rules contain no motion to force a vote. A vote occurs only once debate ends. The term comes from the early 19th century Spanish and Portuguese pirates, "filibusteros", who held ships hostage for ransom.

A Dem filibuster has halted the nomination of three federal judges: Priscilla Owen (for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans), Carolyn Kuhl (for the D.C. Circuit) and Janice Rogers Brown (for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco).

Yahoo provides some commentary and history back in 2001:

A filibuster is a "shameful" and "under-handed" action employed by a "long-winded" "obstructionist ringleader." At least according to some political critics. It's actually a parliamentary tactic used to stall legislative proceedings or to thwart an opposing bill that would otherwise pass.

A filibuster invoked for any purpose is not right. It is the imposition of a different standard of majority upon a particular vote than originally intended. In today's example, if the judges had been advanced for an up or down vote before the entire senate, a simple majority would have confirmed their appointments; however, a parlimentary loophole has effectively bound a 60-40 majority to judicial appointment. Actually this standard is true for any issue. I suspect that the only thing that holds a filibuster in check is the negative press generated by the filibustering party.

UPDATE: As I sat eating my lunch, I realized that in principle, a filibuster is not democratic, as the delaying tactics stop a particular matter from ever reaching a vote at all. Ending a filibuster requires a 2/3rd vote to end a particular speaker's debate--thus the larger majority required.