Skip to main content

View Diary: Filibuster challenged in federal court (80 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "Incompatible with the Constitution" (10+ / 0-)

    Interesting showdown.  I see the Senate's objections to judicial interference in its own rule-making, but when those rules actually impede the people's ability to have laws passed, as outlined in the Constitution?  Hmmm.  

    My preference would be for the Senate to revise its own rules, but it doesn't seem completely unreasonable to have judicial oversight of such a critical Constitutional issue.

    •  It's completely unreasonable (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dinotrac, lorell, qofdisks, soros

      Sorry, the Constitution clearly says that Congress sets its own procedures. It's ok (legally speaking) for Congress to fail to do its job. The remedy is the ballot box.

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 07:01:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So can one Senate make rules (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eric Nelson, bear83

        that the next Senate will be stuck with?

        It's been a hundred years, isn't it time we stopped blaming Captain Smith for sinking the Titanic?

        by happymisanthropy on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 07:15:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, of course. The filibuster. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          qofdisks
        •  That is the question... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bear83

          Is the Senate a long standing body, or do each of its sessions have the same limitations as those of the House: i.e. that no Senate may impose upon future Senate sessions. SCOTUS has ruled that for the House, rules must be reinstated every session, but hasn't ruled for the Senate...

          I would argue that at some point the same logic that held for the House would have to hold for the Senate - that long-dead Senators can't dictate to their successors the rules of the body. That is what, hopefully, Sen. Tom Udall and co-sponsors of filibuster reform will be arguing in January.

          Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

          by Phoenix Rising on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 07:27:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  No, not "stuck with" per se (0+ / 0-)

          Each January the Senate can vote on its procedural rules. If it wants to do away with the filibuster altogether then it can. Or just change the way it works, e.g., requiring the presence and oration of the leader who is filibustering.

          That last bit, incidentally, is exactly what Reid is proposing to do. That used to be the case, and can be again.

      •  I think there are limits (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        plembo

        I imagine a rule giving black senators three fifths of a vote might incur judicial oversight for example.   Given that the question is where the limits on the authority are

        Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

        by Mindful Nature on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 07:43:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site