Original sentence: A fair number of existing justices were confirmed with less than 60 votes, including existing Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (confirmed in a 52-48 vote in 1991).Because of this, many supporters prefer to call it the "constitutional option".Constitution does not explicitly require a three-fifths majority vote for confirmation of judicial nominees, it implies that a simple majority is sufficient.Supporters argue that the filibuster of Bush's nominees effectively establishes a 60 vote threshold  for approval of judicial nominees instead of the 50 vote standard required by an up-or-down vote.The main argument by Republicans supporting the nuclear option is that because the U.Therefore, supporters argue that the nuclear option would bring current rules in line with the original framers' intent
Edited sentence: Because of this, supporters prefer to call it the "constitutional option".Constitution does not require a three-fifths majority vote for confirmation of judicial nominees, implying a simple majority would do.For example, existing Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was confirmed in a 52-48 vote in 1991.Supporters argue that the filibuster of Bush's nominees effectively establishes a 60 vote threshold  for approval of judicial nominees instead of the historical 50 vote standard, that this standard has no historical basis, and that many existing justices would not pass this stricter standard.The main argument by Republicans supporting the nuclear option is that the U.Therefore supporters argue that the nuclear option would restore the Senate's constitutional role of advising and consenting to the President's nominations with a simple majority