This week Republicans filibustered Obama's third nominee to the Court of Appeals in DC. Democrats questioned the ruling by the chair that the Nominee needed 60 votes to advance to final passage. The full Senate then voted whether to uphold the decision by the chair which failed allowing the Nominee to proceed to final passage. This vote eliminated the filibuster for both executive and judicial nominees except those to the Supreme Court.
My question is why don't Democrats use this procedure every time to pass anything? You want to pass VAWA? After the Republicans filibuster VAWA hold a vote on whether to sustain the chair's ruling that 60 votes are needed to advance the VAWA bill to final passage and defeat it with 51 no votes like they did on Thursday with executive and judicial nominees. You want to pass gun control legislation? When Republicans filibuster your gun control bill hold a vote on whether to sustain the chair's ruling that 60 votes are needed to advance the gun control bill to final passage and defeat it with 51 no votes.
By voting to sustain or not sustain the ruling of the chair for specific bills it allows the Democrats a procedural method of getting around the Republican filibuster without being blamed for completely eliminating the filibuster because, well, it was only eliminated for a specific bill. If Democrats could specify changing the filibuster for confirmation votes on specific judges, but not all, then I don't see why they cant get away with changing the filibuster for specific legislation, but not all.
This would ultimately eliminate the filibuster without actually eliminating the filibuster.
