Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Venable Announces New Partner-in-Charge in Rockville, Md. Office | Main | FEC Elects New Chair and Vice Chair for 2013 »

December 21, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e2017c34da7acc970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Judge Voids Challenge of Senate Filibuster Rule:

Comments

Jim

That judge could have taken on the filibuster and declared it "undemocratic for an otherwise democratic institution." What does he do? He says it would invade the internal processes of the Senate. What processes? Gridlock is a process? Who appointed this shallow soul to the federal judiciary?
I know the Constitution allows each house of Congress to make its own rules, however a document that is so antiquated and behind its amendments, in the words of Justice Alito, is "Dead, Dead, Dead" and this ruling is trying prop up the corpse.

Avon

If "the constitutions' 'original intent' was majority rule," then the Senate would never have been created.
The House was intended to represent the people.
The Senate was intended to boost the power of smaller states, use longer terms of service to restrain the fickle People, and generally do things their own way.

I'm afraid Judge Sullivan is absolutely right on this one, just as the courts can't touch the Senate on so many other rules and practices it has - like one Senator being able to "hold" (blackball) certain stuff, or declaring itself to be in session when it actually isn't.

Julia J Garmire

It is obvious the constitutions' 'original intent' was majority rule. It was the standard of almost all deliberative bodies at that time (and since) and as such was so pervasive as a modus operendi that the founders never considered it necessary to even mention it in the constitution. It was assumed that majority would decide outcomes and therefore they only specified certain instances where a 2/3rd vote would be necessary. The Senate by adopting a 60 vote threshold for passing legislation effectively has taken the power of the majority and the people and given it to the minority losers. This should not be constitutional to change the fundamental mechanism of our legislative system, i.e. majority vote wins. That is not to say don't debate,in fact it has nothing to do with those issues. It is tantamount to saying the federal government can require 60% of the electoral college to win the election, otherwise the guy who gets fewer delegates gets to call all the shots. It is absurd...it is the elephant in the room where the constitution took form...they never dreamed they needed to clarify how you vote to pass a bill. It either won more votes or lost! This is insane, frankly.

tmaster

The purpose in that rule was because the senators used to represent the states not the people. That was changed when the 17th amendment was passed and the senators are now political and party driven just like the congress. However it was never meant to be that way and the 17th amendment needs to be revoked.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements