Mr. Judd;

Yes, a real majority party would. The Republicans won't. What does that say?

That they're not yet, in the Senate, a majority?

pj:

It can't require more than a majority to write the rules. The constitution entitles the body to set its own and not even our courts will intervene.

There are some markers down that next week is the week, too.

Leep gargling, Lindsay.

I think it says that, just as the Democratic Party can't conceptualize not being the majority, the Republicans can't conceptualize not being the minority.

The candidates seeking confirmation appear to be sacrificial lambs. The congressional democrats have waning power, but in this arena, they do have power.

The smouldering resentment -continuing for months- against an up-or-down vote in the Senate seems designed to induce voters to make serious changes in the senatorial elections next year.

The GOP's commitment to social conservatism is only mouth deep.

They will be the minority again after the next election, at least in the Senate, and that will be the end of their opportunity to give the federal judiciary a shove in the conservative direction. An opportunity they blew simply out of chronic timidity and lack of genuine commitment.

Dear Mr. Cicero:

Love that philosphy.

Although I'm not as optimistic as OJ about the Senate next year, I think that, barring catastrophe, there is just about zero chance of the Republicans losing the Senate, and even catastrophe probably won't be enough.

More broadly, whether by design or not, the juxtaposition of the lower courts overturning the partial birth abortion ban and the Democrats blocking Brown and Pryor's confirmations can only be good for the Republicans. If they do change the rules on filibusters next week, and I'm pretty sure that a rule change is not itself subject to filibusters, they might gain politically and they certainly won't suffer.

Yes David - this piece in NRO confirms as much regarding the Pickering nomination in particular.

Mr. Cohen;

I live in hope but not expectation. There's a reason we refer to the Republicans as "the Stupid Party" around these parts.

I think the so-called "nuclear option" would not
pass. This is where the weak-horse Republicans
from Maine and RI would peel off.

John has it right and so does J.H.
If so, OJ's expectations for next year will be realised and AOG's hopes will be fulfilled.

The point I was leading toward is that, though Republicans have a nominal majority of 51 votes, liberals may have a majority of 51 votes or so, and conservatives a minority. So it's not clear you can really muster strong support for a conservative agenda item.

David - Under the Senate Rules, it takes 67 votes to change the rules. Of course, the Constitution does say that the Senate is the sole judge of Senate rules, so if 51 Senators were to say that Senate rules actually say that 51 Senators can change the rules, no one can refute them. Still, it looks bad to say the rules say one thing when the written rulebook says something different. That makes it hard to get all 51 Republican onboard -- they don't want to look partisan and uncollegial, or even dishonest.

On the question of a filibuster against rule changes, see here.