quote:
AFAIK, the filibuster is a long-standing tradition and is codified in current Senate rules - but is subject to change. I am not certain of the procedures. If you have neutral references, please cite them.
The procedures for changing the Senate rules are not available to the Republicans, since motions to change the rules are also subject to filibuster, and therefore require a supermajority. (The supermajority is 60% to close debate, by the way, not 67%.) What Frist et al are going to have to do is declare judicial filibusters unconstitutional. Democrats will challenge this ruling, and the Republicans will then table the challenge indefinitely. That motion is not subject to filibuster, and so will carry on a simple majority vote, assuming the leadership can muster a majority. (The unconstitutionality ruling could theoretically be subject to challenge in the courts, especially since it's pretty much nuts as constitutional law, but it's hard to imagine a court intervening in the Senate's internal affairs.) At least that's my understanding of the situation.
Note also that there were, prior to the current administration, a couple of other traditional practices that permitted the minority party to block judicial nominees: the "blue slip" rule (which permitted a single senator from the nominee's home state to block a nomination) and Rule IV, which required the consent of at least one minority committee member to pass a nomination on to the full Senate. Both have been changed since 2000.
™ Version 4.2
