Ah, yes. Senatorial master debating. Glenn writes, after pointing out that Mukasey only won confirmation by a 53-40 vote, points out:

Every time Congressional Democrats failed this year to stop the Bush administration (i.e., every time they “tried”), the excuse they gave was that they “need 60 votes in the Senate” in order to get anything done. Each time Senate Republicans blocked Democratic legislation, the media helpfully explained not that Republicans were obstructing via filibuster, but rather that, in the Senate, there is a general “60-vote requirement” for everything.

Beyond that, four Senate Democrats running for President missed the vote, and all four had announced they oppose Mukasey’s confirmation. Thus, at least 44 Senators claimed to oppose Mukasey’s confirmation — more than enough to prevent it via filibuster. So why didn’t they filibuster, the way Senate Republicans have on virtually every measure this year which they wanted to defeat?

Numerous Senate Democrats delivered dramatic speeches from the floor as to why Mukasey’s confirmation would be so devastating to the country. The Washington Post said the “vote came after more than four hours of impassioned floor debate.”

That’ll show ’em!

Well, let’s hope on retroactive immunity for the telcos, Dodd comes through.

The Fourth Amendment and the rule of law aren’t going to be saved by “impassioned floor debate,” but by doing whatever it takes to prevent legislation from passing.