[markomalley]

If the Republicans control the House anyway, then what difference does it make who controls the Senate?

Two issues:

• The Senate confirms nominees (including SCOTUS). Since Harry Reid already has taken the nuclear option, it only takes 51 votes to confirm.
  
  Again, I have no fantasies that Mitch McConnell has an inner tea partier who will oppose each and every nominee that Øbama proposes, but if the GOP (even the GOP^e) controls committee chairmanships, it will limit how radical the appointees are. They will cooperate with ostentatiously mid-line Dhim nominees, but there is a lot greater chance that they will oppose hard-line radicals than Reid would. With federal judiciary appointments, as we have all seen, this is ABSOLUTELY important.
  
  
• Treaty ratifications. Since the nuclear option has been done with appointments, there is no reason to believe that Reid wouldn't pull the nuclear trigger for treaty ratifications. Treaties stand right after the Constitution in their precedence. Again, I shudder to think what would happen if Harry Reid is the one who determines what should or should not be ratified.

[Alberta's Child]

Two responses:

1. Anyone who thinks a Republican-controlled Senate is ever going to block an Obama nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court has lost his mind.

2. Unlike the process for typical bills and confirmations of executive appointees (i.e., there is no provision in the Constitution for a Senate filibuster ... it is simply a procedural item that can be changed at any time), the Senate majority leader doesn't have the authority to change the rules for treaty ratification. Treaties must be ratified by two thirds of the Senate under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.