my guess is, that by the time the the Senate needs to vote on Obama's SCOTUS pick, Coleman's options will have been exhausted, Franken will have been seated, and the whole filibuster discussion will be moot.
Doesn't matter because in 2005 Frist threatened the Nuclear Option if the dems kept delaying votes on Bush appointees. The gang of 14's agreement prevented the Nuclear option which would have put the matter to a vote. For those not in the know This is the Nuclear Option:
The Nuclear Option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option[/ame]
Republicans are going to piss and shit themselves and call the dems unfair and all sorts of other names, but remember friends, it was the Repubs that threatened this first.
From the same site:
Pro-nuclear option Republicans retorted that they had won recent elections and in a democracy the
winners rule, not the minority.[55] They also argued that while the Constitution requires supermajorities for some purposes (such as 2/3 needed to ratify a treaty), the Founders did not require a supermajority for confirmations, and that the Constitution thus presupposes a majority vote for confirmations. Furthermore, Republicans noted that they had voted for all qualified and ethical nominees nominated by Democratic Presidents, while Democrats had repeatedly voted based on ideology. Some expressed a concern that a new ideological test will be standard in future nominations.
SOOOOO go piss up a rope losers.