[Zuben Elgenubi]

They still need 67 votes to change the fillibuster rules, right?

[cableguymn]

Nope. I do not think that they do.

We are screwed. If the pubs can’t filibuster Obama’s judges it’s game over.

[JPG]

No. Through some parliamentary razzle-dazzle of the rules, the rats change change the filibuster with a simple majority vote.

[Navy Patriot]

They still need 67 votes to change the filibuster rules, right?

No, that's the point.The Senate is Constitutionally authorized to make parliamentary rules for it's self. Filibuster is a parliamentary rule that governs how proposed legislation (Bills) will be debated in the Senate.

Changing the rule is not proposed legislation, it is a rule subject to a majority vote to change or eliminate it.

[pabianice]

>>They still need 67 votes to change the fillibuster rules, right?

NO. Reid says he'll do it with a simple majority. It's done. Boehner has said once Reid does this, all Senate bills that arrive at the House are DOA. But knowing the gutless Boehner, he'll cave on that, too. In the next four years we get to experience the fall of Rome here at home.

[Tandem]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/how_to_end_the_filibuster_with.html

[Road Glide]

“They still need 67 votes to change the fillibuster rules, right?”

No. It can be done with 51 votes, through a “parliamentary maneuver” when the Senate is “in session”.

Each incoming Senate can set its own rules. I believe that normally, the incoming Senate just “extends” the rules of the last one. But... Reid may be able to change this rule in January, again through only a 51-vote majority.