The current situation is one where the appointee has been voted out of the judicial committee and awaits a vote by the full Senate. But the full Senate vote requires cloture, or the vote of 60 Senators to cut off debate. The Democrats stall the vote by means of the threat of a fillibuster (less than 60 votes for cloture). This latter situation has never before been done to a judicial appointee. It is most definitely not the same thing as what happened to some Clinton appointees. A vote to change the Senate rules eliminating fillibusters on judicial appointment votes eliminates a fillibuster option that has never before been exercised. The understanding and agreement has always been that nominees who get voted out of committee receive an up or down vote by the full Senate -- no fillibusters. Eliminating the judicial vote fillibuster DOES NOT eliminate the fillibuster in any other legislative circumstance.
Thanks for the answer. I brought that up today at work and pretty much won the argument. It threw people for a loop that I was on the right of this debate. Again though, thanks.