If (or rather, apparently, when) Bill Frist moves to implement the so-called “nuclear option” and have the Senate adopt new no-filibuster rules for the consideration of judicial nominees, how is it that a Democratic Senator would be prevented from filibustering to prevent a vote on the “nuclear option” itself?
Because the “nuclear option” is a parliamentary maneuver, rather than a piece of legislation. The Senate will be changing its rules, rather than voting on something. The Democratic opposition will object, but the chair will table the objection, then the majority vote will accept the judge, then the precedent will be set.
Perhaps it’s better explained in this article.
Of course, a major reason this is controversial is that they intend to violate the Senate rules, as they presently stand, in order to stop the filibuster. The Republican majority can get away with this, in principle, because disputes about rulings by the chair are resolved by majority vote.
I don’t want to venture into GD territory, so I’m stopping there.
Few things are certain about the filibuster fight, but one element which is certain is that the Senate won’t be amending its standing rules. A motion to do so could be filibustered, and breaking the filibuster would require a two-thirds majority, which is clearly unattainable in this case.
Instead, if the issue isn’t resolved by Tuesday, Republicans will attempt to “establish a precedent” that filibusters can’t be used for judicial nominations. All this requires is a friendly ruling from the chair and a majority to table the subsequent appeal. The exact form of the point of order which will elicit the ruling remains to be seen.
Some media outlets are referring to this as a “de facto rule change”.