Quote Originally Posted by Xiahou
I get it just fine, thanks. You think that removing, in theory, the ability of 1 senator to endlessly filibuster a treaty's ratification that otherwise has the support of 67 or more members would be a "far greater" change than lowering the filibuster threshold from 67 to 60 for all cases.
Don't put words in my mouth. When did I say 1 senator fillibustering was worse? That makes error #5. I said that the change to the cloture rule was far greater than the previous change from 67 to 60 done in 1975. Are you going to attempt to argue that a change from 67 to 60 is greater than a change from 60 to 59? Don't bother. Even just mathematically, the change of the proposed nuclear option would have been greater. And from a non-math standpoint, the nuclear option would have been a greater change in procedures and might also have sparked a Constitutional challenge, while the 1975 change was only in the numbers required. The nuclear option wouldn't just change the numbers, it would eliminate the cloture rule altogether for executive calendar items.

I maintain that isn't the case because 41 senators who'd be willing to sustain a filibuster there'd almost certainly be 32 who are willing to vote it down.
What? If there were 41 senators willing to sustain a fillibuster, then that's the end of the story. What possible connection does the number 32 have with anything we're discussing? That would be error #6.

Now, if you're right and your concern is justified, you should have no problem finding any number of treaties that have been filibustered and not voted on since the cloture threshold was reduced to 60. Easy right? Otherwise, I'm going to maintain that there is no practical difference.
That doesn't follow logically at all. You're still missing the point. I'm not concerned about it. I'm pointing out why your statement was in error. You stated, after being corrected on your initial error several times by me, that the nuclear option would only have an affect on nominations. That's not the case. You were wrong. Rather than just admitting that you were wrong, you've set up this whole straw man argument about how it wouldn't matter if treaties couldn't be fillibustered. That isn't and never has been germaine to the argument. Clearly, the nuclear option would have affected all executive calendar items. That means more than just nominations. Thus, you were wrong and Bill Frist was lying.

Even more, a case can be made that the executive calendar includes other items besides just nominations and treaties. It can include other issues presented to the Senate by the executive branch. We haven't even gotten that far in the argument yet; but we might as well. What other items are presented to the Senate by the executive? Remember the vote to authorize the president to invade Iraq? Executive calendar item. We can go on.

To steal a line from Bill Hicks, you're responding to my arguments like a dog who has just been shown a magic trick.