[RobbyS]

This is my understanding. I am going to check it out today by calling my senator.

Effectively a simply majority. The minority has put its own construction on the rule If the President is asked for a ruling on whether Rule 22 may be applied to nominations and is sustained by a majority, then that becomes the precedent and override the minority claim. So it boils down to interpretation of the rule which remains formally unchanged.

[RandallFlagg]

Bookmarking.

Does every Senator have to be there?

If so, does that mean Hitlery can actually look worse?

[Gorjus]

So it boils down to interpretation of the rule which remains formally unchanged.

I believe this is correct, however . . .

I hope they don't change the rule (via intepretation of the chair and vote to uphold his decision). If the concept of filibuster goes away (and if they do it on judicial nominations, then it's effectively gone for everything by the same method of chair ruling), the time will come when we have a Dem President and a majority Dem Senate. I don't like to think what will happen under those circumstances.

It's true that the Dems play hardball and the Republicans are wimps, but even the threat of filibuster keeps some of the most egregious travesties out. Remember Lani Guiniere? In the history of the US, the amount of time that there was a filibuster-proof majority is pretty small, and that's a good thing, because I'd rather have nothing done (until the next election, when the price for partisan politics can be assessed) than to have unrestrained government actions when the Dems are in power.