Responding to my oped from yesterday, Larry Solum weighs in here. I agree with Larry that when a filibuster continues to the end of a term it imposes a de facto supermajority requirement. I just don’t see the constitutional problem: why is this not just an instance of the Senate withholding consent? As a matter of “ideal theory,” why not let the political process in the Senate—itself a non-majoritarian institution–determine who gets an up or down vote?