[dufekin]

The White House (and the rest of us) ought to rejoice in that we conned the Democratic MAJORITY into agreeing (revocably and tentatively) to permit even a few judicial nominees to receive the dignity of a vote on consent in the Senate. We've been fighting for these nominees for years; now we finally might get a vote.

And the Republican minority sought only a clarification, not a rule-change, that insofar as concerns judicial nominees, they actually constitute the majority. We'll continue to fight for the remaining nominees over the coming months and years. But we got one small part of a victory tonight, and a few judges might get their confirmation votes if we can get them before the majority Democrats' offering faces expiration, retraction, or repeal.

In any case, Henry Saad would not be entitled to any vote whatsoever, because his nomination is subject to a "hold," a parliamentary procedure that a home-state senator can issue to suspend singlehandedly any consideration of whether to debate whether to grant him the courtesy of a debate that might lead to a vote.

[Zack Nguyen]

In any case, Henry Saad would not be entitled to any vote whatsoever, because his nomination is subject to a "hold,"

Is that an actual rule, or just an arcane Senate "tradition"? I have a feeling its the latter.

I think this is a major problem for the party. A major problem. The Senate Republicans decided tonight that keeping the "system" rolling onward, providing pork and privilege and security, was more important than making sure all the nominees passed.