Skip to main content

View Diary: Filibuster castrates majority rule, violates Constitution (13 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Trouble is, it takes 60 votes to pass anything (0+ / 0-)

    once the minority party opts to filibuster it.... including a hypothetical proposal to end the filibuster.  No chance in hell.   Senate has been fairly evenly split Dem/Repub for some time now.  

    So there is not only gridlock, but a built-in guarantee of meta-gridlock if a rule change were proposed.  

    •  That doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      "Unconstitutional" is not a synonym for "really bad or stupid idea."  

      The constitution specifically says in Article I, section 5 that each chamber can set its own rules.  I don't see a constitutional limit on that and -- more importantly  -- I don't see any basis for the judicial branch to impose a limit on what rules each chamber can set.  That's a clear separation of powers problem.  

    •  Torta - why don't we require that Dems (0+ / 0-)

      running for the Senate take a "pledge" to vote for majority rule in the Senate? Why not include this in the Dem platform?

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:28:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site