[Political Junkie Too]

The Democrats don't want a successful cloture vote, and an unsuccessful vote just continues debate, which is what they want. So they [Republicans] will not call for one.

But, isn't it also true that Republicans don't want to call for a cloture vote on a judicial nominee because of the precedent that would set? Isn't that one of the "traditions" in the Senate (respecting the president's right to nominate judges) that the Senate (Democrats) would be trashing by establishing the precedent that a president needs 60 Senate votes to appoint a nominee instead of 51, thereby effectively ceding the power to appoint judges to the Senate?

-PJ

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

The Democrats don't want a successful cloture vote, and an unsuccessful vote just continues debate, which is what they want. So they [Republicans] (No, I meant the Democrats) will not call for one.

But, isn't it also true that Republicans don't want to call for a cloture vote on a judicial nominee because of the precedent that would set?

Precedent is already being set by the Democrats in threatening to Filibuster a nomination for a District Court. Calling for a cloture vote will not happen until, and unless, there are 60 votes. The exception to this is if publicity gets bad, the the Republicans might call for one to have vulnerable Democrats go on record supporting the Filibuster.

Isn't that one of the "traditions" in the Senate (respecting the president's right to nominate judges) that the Senate (Democrats) would be trashing by establishing the precedent that a president needs 60 Senate votes to appoint a nominee instead of 51, thereby effectively ceding the power to appoint judges to the Senate?

Isn't that what the Democrats have already done? By threatening to Filibuster, they have already said "51 is not enough, you must have 60!"

Let them talk themselves hoarse, then we will see how many we need. If their Filibuster works, we now need 60, if it fails we still need 51.