Expanding the Supreme Court...

[FBaggins]

9. Nothing in there contradicts what I said

The problem with the "nuclear option" in 2013 and 2017 were both making the argument that the filibuster rule applies to legislation and not constitutional duties of the Senate (i.e., the constitution sets a majority rule to consent, and interpreting the filibuster to apply to that obligation is inappropriate). You can't make the same type of argument for legislation... which is obviously what the filibuster has always been about.

Imagine a bill that a majority wanted to pass but also didn't want to be SEEN as voting for. Could they use the "nuclear option" to change Senate rules to require only 40 votes to pass a bill? The same "create a new precedent" standard would apply... but it's still nonsense.

I'm not sure there are enough votes to actually do it... especially if it's a narrow majority.

IOW... possible... but by no sense "very simply"