Okay, that errand was a quick one.

Jeffrey at Three Bad Fingers cites two more witnesses to challenge my proof that there is no "nuclear option."

Lastly, the Harvard Law Review recently published this masterpiece outlining why the Constitutional Option is a valid option:

[T]he current Senate could alter the application of the Senate s Standing Rules and precedents by adopting a Standing Order. A majority could thereby override Rule XXII  Regardless, the effect would be the same   to alter Senate procedures governing debate by majority vote.

This "masterpiece" is shockingly easy to dismiss. I quote from said masterpiece:

PART V: CHANGING SENATE PROCEDURES VIA STANDING ORDERS

Standing Orders, either entered into by unanimous consent or legislatively enacted by the Senate, represent another potential avenue for exercising the constitutional rulemaking power to alter Senate procedures. Just as in the past a majority has used Standing Orders to alter the application of Senate rules and precedents governing conference reports, so a future majority could use a Standing Order to alter the application of Senate rules and precedents governing cloture of debate.

By unanimous consent, huh? THAT'S not gonna happen...

Legislatively enacted by the Senate? You think think these judicial nominees will be filibustered, try enacting a repeal of the cloture rules.

The funny thing is, this "standing orders" thing is exactly what the first witness appears to be complaining about:

standing order

A regulation that is in force until it is specifically changed or withdrawn, as in The waiters have standing orders to fill all glasses as they are emptied. This idiom began life in the mid-1600s as standing rule; the word order began to be used about 1800 for such military orders and gradually was extended to other areas.

...a rule that stands until explicitly changed. And yes, the rule can be changed...I made that clear from the beginning. But until the rule is changed, well, it hasn't been changed. And changing it still requires a two thirds majority of voting Senators.

At this point Senator Frist has the option to try to establish a nuclear option. That's all.

And the third witness?

I turn to Senator Byrd, the esteemed Democratic Senator from West Virginia:

The Constitution in article I, section 5, says that each House shall determine the rules of its proceedings. Now we are at the beginning of Congress. This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past 

The first Senate, which met in 1789, approved 19 rules by a majority vote. Those rules have been changed from time to time  So the Members of the Senate who met in 1789 and approved that first body of rules did not for one moment think, or believe, or pretend, that all succeeding Senates would be bound by that Senate  It would be just as reasonable to say that one Congress can pass a law providing that all future laws have to be passed by two-thirds vote. Any Member of this body knows that the next Congress would not heed that law and would proceed to change it and would vote repeal of it by majority vote.

[I]t is my belief which has been supported by rulings of Vice Presidents of both parties and by votes of the Senate in essence upholding the power and right of a majority of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate at the beginning of a new Congress.

...to which I respond, "So what?"

He's a politician.