The Senate voted 55 to 38 to move forward with the nomination of Patricia Ann Millett to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, five votes short of the 60 required to break the Republican filibuster. Forty Republicans opposed the nomination, three voted "present" and two joined Democrats in supporting her. The vote to advance the nomination of Representative Melvin Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, to become the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency was 56 to 42, four votes short. Forty-one Republicans opposed Mr. Watt, and two supported him.
Republican objections to Ms. Millet, however, had nothing to do with her judicial temperament or political leanings. Instead, Republicans say they want to refuse Mr. Obama any more appointments to the appeals court, which is widely recognized as second only to the Supreme Court in importance and often rules on the legality of executive branch actions.
"Our Democratic colleagues and the administration's supporters have been actually pretty candid," said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader. "They've admitted they want to control the court so it will advance the president's agenda."
The court is currently split evenly with four Republican appointees and four Democratic appointees among the judges who regularly hear cases. But it still has three vacancies. And Senate Democrats have accused Republicans, who are pushing a bill that would eliminate those three seats permanently because they argue the court has a light caseload, of trying to change the rules simply because they do not like the president who is picking judges.
"The judiciary is too important to play partisan games with," said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California. "And that's exactly what's going on here."
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said Ms. Millett's defeat would force Democrats to reconsider changing the Senate rules so Republicans would not be able use the filibuster so freely.
"It's not fair, it's not an extraordinary circumstance," Mr. Leahy said of the Republicans' reasons for opposing her. "There's no justification for it."
Whether Democrats have the stomach for another tense and consuming fight over the filibuster is an open question. Supporters of overhauling the rules note that with judges, the political calculation is far more complicated than changing the rules on filibusters against executive branch nominees.
Among senators of both parties, there is agreement that a president should be granted deference in picking members of his cabinet and top executive branch positions. But with judges, who are given lifetime terms that extend far beyond a president's four or eight years in office, sentiments can be different.
Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, said that he senses a reluctance among his colleagues to eliminate filibusters against judicial nominees in the event Democrats found themselves in the minority in the future.
"They'll say, those folks are two or four years, they're not lifetime appointments like judges. And so with judges we want to protect and sustain the ability to block bad judges," he said, adding that he did not share that view because any majority can change the rules at any point and render the judicial filibuster obsolete.
"Preserving a filibuster on judicial nominees is not going to protect against judges you disagree with down the line if you're in the minority," Mr. Merkley said.
