I'm not following you. I don't blame you. I had beans for breakfast, and it is likely to be a windy morning, if you get my drift.
;-)
As you know, my recent post to you was merely commenting on whether or not cloture would be invoked. I have been speculating that cloture (Rule XXII) won't be invoked, and just stumbled into the "preservation of Rule XXII for legislatibve matters" reason. Caveat, I have been know to be all wet, completely wrong in my speculation.
I did however start a list of concepts, reasons, signals, etc. that support my speculation. Provided here, FWIW.
- One of the purposes of cloture, in fact the reason it exists, is to limit debate. Frist indicates no intention to limit debate on a nominee.
- Trade 60 vote supermajority to take a vote (of cloture) for unanimous consent (the underlying Senate tradition). This forces individual Senators to individually object to voting, and defend their individual "right" to deny rendering their judgement on a nominee. That is, a single Senator withholding consent to the vote will CLEARLY be seen as an abuse of Senatorial discretion, where cloture is NOT clearly seen as extreme.
- Avoids the rules change pitfall, where 2/3rd supermajority is required to change a rule.
- Retains cloture for legislative issues.
- Filibuster is designed to facilitate compromise. But in a nominee, no adjustment can be made. Compromise is an inapplicable notion when the matter under consideration is a nominee.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1404953/posts?page=13#13 - Moving ahead without invoking cloture can be spun to the gullible public as a "compromise," saving face for the DEMs and RINO's (who won't know what hit them).