I'm very much opposed to it and I don't believe it's very good law.

My view is that the Senate can shape its own rules, and the Rule 22 now requires that 60 percent of the -- 60 votes in the Senate are required to impose cloture [...] But I think if we ever went to majority rule it would really undermine the capacity of the Senate [to] advise and consent, and I think the people who voted for it would see that the Senate as a unique institution in the world would rapidly diminish in stature.

The Constitution talks about "advise and consent." A President doesn't appoint judges, he nominates judges. The President only has half the action. The other half [of the] action is the independent discretion of the Senate. If it was just a case of majority rule, they'd be able to jam all the stuff through without the traditional ability of the Senate to ventilate these issues. So I'm very much opposed to it.

A long time ago when I was Vice President I once ruled that a majority could change the rules. I changed my mind while I was in the Senate and a few years ago gave a speech at the Senate Leadership Conference saying that I believe majority rule would undermine the Senate in a profound way. So I'm very much opposed to it.

There’s been a lot of Republicans – I’ve talked to many of them – and some are opposed to it on philosophy, though they’re very upset with the Democrats. One of them who is a very influential man, Senator Hatch, he really doesn’t want to do it, but he feels like he’s at the end of his rope with the Democrats. [...]

It will be a big mistake. It will not bring down the Republic, but it will be a big mistake.

I regret the necessity of changing Senate rules on extended debate. I hope for a compromise that will retain those rights and allow votes on all Presidential nominees. But in the absence of such an agreement, it would be disastrous to change the processes of two hundred years and begin a system in which confirmation requires sixty votes. The "nuclear option" is a bad idea, but the present position of the Democrats is far worse.

I’d be sitting with whoever it is – Harry Reid, or whoever he designated – and I would… the seat of your pants gets kind of hard, but I would sit there and sit there and look at every possible alternative before you start tinkering with the rules. Senator Byrd has done that, he’s tinkered with the rules. Sometimes it was a good idea, sometimes maybe not. But the so-called option, whatever you call it, is a last resort. I think I may be wrong, but I still think there’s going to be some kind of a deal struck where both sides can interpret it the way they want.

If I were going to give the Democrats advice, I would say these Appellate judges aren’t as important as a Supreme Court Justice. Why not hold your fire until you get a Supreme Court nominee, because if you do it now and lose, you’re going to be in a weaker position. And it’s hard to get the American people to focus on seven, eight or nine justices around the country, but if you’re talking abut a Supreme Court judge, you’re going to get a lot of focus, a lot of attention, a lot of media coverage, and that’s where the battle ought to be fought in my opinion. Of course my opinion doesn’t count.