Well, when it comes, it won't be an announcement that "I think we should fillibuster this nomination" it will all be in code: Rushing to decide, need more time, need more debate, need more answers, need more xyz, so we shouldn't close off debate. Then, when the cloture motion comes to the floor to close off debate, they either vote against it, or - according to the moonbats at DU - just don't show up for the cloture vote to help deny the 60 votes needed.
However, I think that might be even better for us. If cloture doesn't pass, especially by virtue of lots of Dems absent, then we should move to have the presiding officer rule on the constitutionality of requiring cloture for judicial nominees immediately. Cboldt, I'm not sure if it requires 50% of the senators SEATED or 50% of the senators PRESENT to send the question to the president of the senate. What do you think?
I think also the Cheney should definitely show up on Monday afternoon to preside over the senate, just to drive the Dems nuts - Big Time.
Cloture doesn't require 60 votes. It requires 60% of those present to vote for it. If the dems in support of a filibuster don't show they'll guarantee cloture.
Not that I'm confused enough to think that you believe anything these nutjobs say should be seriously considered...
I never looked it up in detail, or if I did look it up, I forgot. Take the following with a grain of salt.
Sending a point of order to the chair is an action that a single Senator can take. Then, given a ruling from the chair, a Senator and a second can cause a vote to appeal the rule of the chair. A vote to appeal is a vote to "reverse" the rule of the chair, if you will. A motion to appeal the rule of the chair carries on a majority of Senators present AND voting.
That scenario is basically the nuclear option, and the DEMs are nuts if they provoke things that far. I'm all for it if they do, BTW. Alito turned in a solid performance, and scuttling the nomination with 41 votes against is not going to happen.