Do Republican believe that all filibusters are unconstitutional?

I realize that Republicans claim that they are only referring to the approval of judicial nominees, but is there really any difference between a filibuster of judicial nominees and a filibuster of legislation? If they get away with this, it just opens the door wide open for the complete elimination of the filibuster.

and how do you think that Helms earned the monicker "Senator No" in the first place?

They just want to manipulate the public into believing that non-Republicon fillibusters are unconstitutional.

NGU.

The repugs only think filibusters originating on the left side of the aisle are unconstitutional. But, in order to get rid of them, they have to say that all judicial filibusters are bad. We all know that it's the old bait-and-switch routine and we all know that it won't stop there. The next step is to eliminate legislative filibusters. They will accomplish that in more or less the same way that they attacked the judicial filibuster, by claiming a crisis and telling lots of lies.

The probable issue will be the budget. The White House will include a particularly egregious addition to the budget which they know the Dems will not be able to swallow. This will force the Dems to take a firm stand, and inevitably to filibuster. The repugs will say something like we can't use filibusters to shut-down the government and that it is unprecedented. They'll say that whether or not it is true, because the media won't challenge them. They'll lie, cheat, and twist everything around. They'll win because they have the power to win.

Then, the country will be totally fucked, if we aren't already.

then why haven't they challenged it in the courts?

Why have they used it?

If it was unconstitutional then the filibuster would be for both legislation and judicial nominees.

The filibuster is a senate rule that is in force until the current Congressional session is ended.

2 sets of morals.

to them Rule #1: They are always right.