[TLBSHOW]

I don't understand the arguments against it. I would appreciate it if somebody could explain what the harm is of a cloture vote. I have asked repeatedly for that explanation.

I have posted it to you a lot here it is again...from that fox news story;;;;;


The decision to call for a "cloture" vote on an appellate court nominee would overturn more than two centuries of Senate precedent and rewrite the constitutional definition of "advise and consent."

[aristeides]

The decision to call for a "cloture" vote on an appellate court nominee would overturn more than two centuries of Senate precedent and rewrite the constitutional definition of "advise and consent."

I take that to contain two points: (1) holding a cloture vote would overturn Senate precedent and establish that 60 votes are needed to confirm a judge; and (2) holding a cloture vote would unconstitutionally change the meaning of "advise and consent."

On point (1), I think the Democrats have already set the precedent by mounting the filibuster. I think failing to hold the cloture vote and thereby admitting defeat would much more serve to consolidate that precedent than holding a cloture vote, hopefully followed by further debate and cloture votes.

On point (2), if the Constitution's "advice and consent" language doesn't permit filibusters, then the filibuster of Abe Fortas in 1968 was unconstitutional. I've never heard anybody argue that. I don't think it's a plausible view. I would be willing to bet that courts would reject the argument. I don't believe such a view of the Constitution is consistent with allowing filibusters of legislation, which I believe the courts have upheld.