« Dean gaffes archive | Main | A terrible bill, but few complain »

Interesting point

James Taranto explains how Democrats ensured Bill Pryor's confirmation by filibustering him.

[H]is vote was pretty close: 53-45 (two senators missed the vote). Three Republicans (Rhode Island's Lincoln Chafee and Maine's Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe) voted against his confirmation; two Democrats (Nebraska's Ben Nelson and Colorado's Ken Salazar) voted in favor.

What if the Democrats had allowed Pryor's nomination to come up for a vote back in 2003 rather than filibustering him? Back then there were only 51 Republicans; with three dissenters there would have been only 48 GOP votes in his favor, two short of the 50 (plus the vice president) needed to confirm. Without two Democratic votes, Pryor would have been rejected.

Salazar wasn't in the Senate yet, but Zell Miller still was, and he was a reliable vote for the president's judicial nominees. That means that if the Democrats had prevailed upon Ben Nelson to cast a party-line vote, or had persuaded one more Republican to jump ship, they would have been able to block Pryor's nomination. It is possible that by filibustering him, they ended up assuring his confirmation.

Ha ha. </Nelson Munz>