Looks like they're gonna do it
It's true in physics and in politics: For every action, there's an opposite and equal reaction. And so after Senate Republican filibustered President Obama's nominees to sit on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals -- not on concerns about ideology or qualifications, but over the president's ability to appoint ANYONE to these vacancies -- Senate Democrats are poised to change the rules via the so-called "nuclear option." And while this may seem like a threat you've heard before, this time it seems as if there isn't any deal that will derail this likely action. Senate Democratic aides confirm to First Read that they're expected to vote today to change the rules to eliminate the 60-vote threshold for all executive appointments, except to the U.S. Supreme Court. Such a move requires just a 51-vote majority, so Democrats could lose four of their colleagues and still win the vote. Senate Republicans counter that if Democrats go through with this change, they'll reciprocate the next time they control the White House and the Senate -- including for Supreme Court picks. "If [Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid] changes the rules for some judicial nominees, he is effectively changing them for all judicial nominees, including the Supreme Court," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said yesterday, per the Washington Post. But Harry Reid believes he does have 51 votes, especially since he convinced Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to climb on board this nuke-option train. She had been an influential holdout in the past.
Personally, I think the President has the constitutional duty to nominate federal judges, and the Senate has the constitutional duty to confirm or deny them. But the Senate does not have the right, duty, or standing to filibuster dozens of nominations just for political nonsense.
Here is a link that might be useful: link