[xzins]

The Senate is allowed to make its own rules.

Old rules of old Senates are not sacrosanct...otherwise they'd have the force of constitutional amendments.

Each Senate, at the beginning of the term, can make its own rules, change old rules, or throw out unwanted rules.

AND by simple majority vote WITHOUT the possibility of filibuster.

[gbchriste]

AND by simple majority vote WITHOUT the possibility of filibuster.

You're wrong. Debate on a change to the rules of the Senate can only be closed with the consent of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting...that's 67 votes, a "super fillibuster", as opposed to the 60 required to close debate on other questions. See Senate rule XXII.

Makes the possibility of a rule change highly unlikly. While I'd like to impute pure and noble motives to the Senate Republicans, I don't think enough of them will want to give up the possibility of having this leverage for their own future use. What if the shoe was on the other foot with John Kerry elevating some ultra-liberal judge from the California 9th District Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court and the Repulicans were in the Senate minority?

[rwfromkansas]

No....need 2/3 majority.

BUT...the Chair can issue a ruling denying fillibusters and that can be upheld by a simple majority.

That would do the same thing.

[Ruth C]

There is a need for the 60 vote to get cloture. The republicans remember the times when they were the minority and could use it to stop things. However, there is also a way to keep it and still get the nominees a vote up [51] or down. Modify the rule to eliminate it's use for nominees. How hard can that be. That would get the nomination process back to what it was meant to be.

[ELS]

Each Senate, at the beginning of the term, can make its own rules, change old rules, or throw out unwanted rules. AND by simple majority vote WITHOUT the possibility of filibuster.

Sounds like the way to go to me.