You just said Chafee or Collins might. How about Snowe, McCain, Warner or Specter. No one really knows.
This rule change seems to be a really big thing for the Rinos. They had to come to a deal before so who's to say. I think the extraordinary circumstances is too big a hurdle but it's not insurmountable.
I doubt a filibuster will happen but let's be realistic. Until we have 50 votes committed to the nuke option we cannot be sure. And I'm not trying to appear so bright. I'm just a realist.
Apologies for the brightness remark, FRiend. It's been a long night.
The rules change is a big issue for both parties. Right now, what is stinking out the joint is the asymmetry. The dems are playing litmus test politics on judicial nominees backed up by filibuster threats, but this only works as long as (1) the pubbies don't change the rules and/or (2) the pubbies don't play tit-for-tat the next time a democrat is president.
In the latter case, it would be the democrats clamoring for a rules change, and probably doing it. The "nuclear" option, remember, is actually the "Byrd precedent." They've done it before. This whole dem kabuki dance is a gamble that Republicans won't retaliate in kind.
My prediction: the dems will go through the motions of a filibuster but -- unless they are sure the Republicans don't have 50 votes for a rules change -- they will make sure the votes are there for cloture, so as not to force the endgame. A half a dozen of the moderate and/or red state dems will get a wink, nod, and shove from the leadership, and the Republicans will get 61 or 62 votes for cloture while the rest of the dem caucus runs through a charade to satisfy the moonbat wing of the party.
P.S. I am genuinely conflicted. In the current polarized environment, I don't think legislative filibusters would long survive a rules change on judicial filibusters; the precedent would not be contained. With majority rule in the Senate, we could do Social Security and tax reform right now, and probably make big strides on vouchering education and health care. I appreciate how much conservatives relied on the filibuster during the decades of demlock in Congress, and I know the dems will have a majority again someday. But right now, we have the votes (absent a filibuster) on a pretty extensive list of needful things, and it's tempting.
Are the issues I've noted above important enough to throw away the filibuster? Perhaps, but I am conflicted. But if the dems force our hand on judicial filibusters, they -- not we -- will have settled the issue. The more I think about it, the more I hope the dems blunder into a nuclear option vote.