The Arbitrary ChuckJerry

I've been interested in the last day or so about the process of the filibuster and how it works and what it accomplishes. I thought there was some sort of huge process with it, but there really isn't. As I understand, a senator is given the floor and just starts talking. He then keeps talking until everyone leaves so there can be no vote on whatever topic they're discussing. Usually this is used so that the president can't just appoint anyone he wants to a judge's seat. Essentially it means that you need 60 votes to get your guy in instead of a simple majority of 51, since 60 votes are needed to forego any more debate and force a vote.

For the most part filibustering is accepted out of a respect for limiting the power of the majority. If the majority party wanted to just pass every bill in the world, then there would be nothing to stop them without the filibuster. The Democrats and Republicans both know at this point what it's like to be the minority party, so they recognize that the majority can be overzealous in their plans. As this is such, filibusters are an accepted, if not welcome, part of the Congressional workings.

Recently there has been a good deal of talk about the current Republican majority trying to end the filibuster in order to essentially pack the courts with their favorite judges. To do this would require something known as "the nuclear option."

An explanation of the nuclear option from the People for the American Way site:

The "nuclear option" is actually a series of steps that right-wing senators would take to eliminate the filibuster. The "nuclear" attack would likely begin with one party’s senators provoking a filibuster, most likely by trying to force a confirmation vote on an out-of-the-mainstream appeals court nominee. A senator would then object, claiming that the filibuster cannot be used on a judicial nomination. Vice President Cheney or another senator presiding over the Senate would rule in the Radical Right's favor, and then that ruling would be appealed. A simple majority (with Vice President Cheney as the tie-breaking vote if necessary) would then uphold the ruling, and the filibuster would be history.

You might find this explanation, also from PFAW, a bit more clear.

I don't really understand how the nuclear option works. The intent is clear: somehow it invokes a different rule in the Senate that requires only 51 votes to pass, so that they can force their issue through. I don't understand why it would be following the rules, however, to uphold the claim that a filibuster is not allowed. Clearly it is allowed, and has been used many times before.

Who, you may ask, holds the record for the longest filibuster? Why that honor goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond, who held the floor for 24 hours and 18 minutes. What, pray tell, got Mr. Thurmond so worked up as to go on and on for an entire day to delay a vote? Well, it was his staunch opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

UPDATE: I read a bit more about the nuclear option and I think I understand it a little better, but the actual process used still doesn't quite click for me. At the end of the day, what makes the nuclear option possible is that Rule 22, which is the rule concerning the "cloture" vote which requires 60 people to end debate, is most likely unconstitutional. The Congress may not enact a rule which binds the hands of a future Congress. This has apprently been upheld by the Supreme Court again and again.

I think, then, that at the time it came to exercise the nuclear option, the argument would be that Rule 22 should not apply since it binds the hands of the existing Congress. What follows, though, still makes no sense to me. It is a series of procedural moves that don't quite add up. Would anyone who uderstands what acutally happens at the point the nuclear option is put into effect, please try to explain it to me?