[Petronski]

Note this language from my post at #80:

However, Cornyn’s May 6 hearing on the constitutionality of filibusters against judicial nominees demonstrated the widely-held view shared by legal scholars and Vice Presidents across the political spectrum that a prior Senate majority cannot constitutionally forbid a current Senate majority from changing the rules if it wants to do so.

If the rules regarding non-filibusterability of rules votes result from the previous Senate, they cannot bind the current Senate. But what about the value of precedent?

[ken5050]

precedent is whatever you make of it, or not....no more, no less...but it will be fun to see Byrd go ballistic.....we might even have a vacancy in the Senate from WV....