Filibuster, election process, help me understand

[WebeBlue]

Hi, I just got thru reading thru a thread over at CGCS and this caught my attention. Before the tsunami and the media turned it's entire attention to reporting on the tsunami, I had been hearing in msm some mentions of B*** and republicans wanting to end/stop filibusters. I didn't think much about it at the time (I profess my ignorance and only layman's understanding of constitutional processes), but after reading the thread this morning, now I'm wondering if what I was hearing was significant. Another avenue being closed off to blocking the validity of this election.

Can you DU folks add to my understanding of this?

Copy/paste;
http://blog.forclark.com/story/2004/12/30/15644/184
snip from the clarkblog listed above:

According to research done here, once an election challenge has occurred, the House and Senate split into their respective bodies to deal with the challenge. According to the federal statute on this issue, both houses have a 2 hour limit on debate, after which they are supposed to vote to accept or reject the electors.

However, Senate Rules contradict the federal statute: the Senate Rules allow unlimited debate unless 60 Senators vote to cut off debate. The Senate Rules are Constitutionally granted. The Constitution trumps a federal statute.

Although I'm not an attorney, the view here is that the Senate can insist that its rules take precedence over the statute if it wants to. That means, if the Democratic Senators stand firm, they can insist that the Senate follow its own rules for debate in this matter.

There are 45 Democratic Senators. This is enough to sustain a filibuster. Again, it takes 60 Senators to cut off debate, according to the Senate rules.
--------------------------------------

* A Filibuster Would Stop the Process, and Bush's "Election" Would be Put on Hold, Pending a Fair Resolution of the Legal Dispute in Ohio.

If the Senate filibusters the Ohio electors, this means that the process of counting electoral votes which starts on January 6th would come to a halt. Bush's "election" would be put on hold.

The filibuster would only continue long enough until there is a fair resolution of the legal dispute in Ohio.

If the Ohio Courts reach a fair decision, and that decision is for Kerry, then the Ohio court should order the Kerry electoral ballots to be counted by Congress. If the House and Senate-controlled by Republicans-refuse to count the Ohio Kerry electoral ballots, then the filibuster should continue beyond Jan. 20th, at which point Bush's term expires, and Dennis Hastert becomes President.
The optimum situation is for Kerry to win and replace Bush. But it is still a victory if Bush is replaced by Hastert.
--------------------------------------

* If the Senate Doesn't Filibuster, and Kerry Subsequently Wins Ohio in the Legal Dispute, the Only Way to Remove Bush Then Would be by Impreachment

If there is no filibuster, and the electoral votes are counted, Bush can only then be removed by impeachment, should the Ohio court decision award Ohio to Kerry. That is why a filibuster is so important.