Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  If the SCOTUS can... (21+ / 0-)

    ...overrule a line-item veto, why can't they overrule the filibuster?

    When they overruled the line-item veto, they said that Congress could not delegate their powers (something that is not in the Constitution, but the SCOTUS sometimes makes stuff up). The filibuster basically delegates to 40  Senators the powers of 51 Senators.

    It also goes against the spirit of the compromise that created the Senate. The Founders already gave a small minority extra rights to influence legislation: That minority is known as "New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Delaware, and South Carolina" (only some snark intended).

    Creating an even smaller minority and granting them even more rights was not contemplated by the Founders at all.

    I see no reason that the SCOTUS shouldn't hear the case and a lot of good reasons for them to side against the filibuster.

    •  Makes Sense to This Legal Layman. nt (0+ / 0-)

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 03:04:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Because Congress gets to make its own (11+ / 0-)

      rules, and the President wasn't empowered to write his own legislation through nullification.

      The two aren't the same, and it's not a matter of "spirit" but plain reading.

      This place needs a PVP server.

      by JesseCW on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 03:14:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Except the president uses 'signing statements' (0+ / 0-)

        to ignore the stuff he considers 'unconstitutional.' That is, in effect, nullification.

        Filibuster reform now. No more Gentleman's agreements.

        by bear83 on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 08:45:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It doesn't change what the law *is*. It's (0+ / 0-)

          a statement by a President that he intends to violate his oath and betray the country.

          Voters keep re-electing them after they do it, though.  WE were intended to be the primary check on Presidents who just blatantly refuse to do their jobs.

          This place needs a PVP server.

          by JesseCW on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:04:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  That was a very different thing. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mindful Nature, cstark

      The line item veto was, in effect, giving the executive branch the power to re-write laws, and writing law is the domain of the legislature.

      The Senate rules apply to...the Senate.  No separation of powers issue there.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 07:10:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I have got to agree, even though (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I am loathe to interfere in internal Senate rules; these have developed organically over the life of the institution, and should be countermanded by the judicial branch only under the most clear violations of  Constitutional "original intent."  But I have to say, on reading the brief and the arguments outlined in the diary... OK, this is a real and serious case, and the Constitutional case appears strong, and worthy of consideration.  My worry is political: that the power we surrender now could be regretted at a future point when we may need it again (as we Democrats did under Reagan and Bush1 and Bush2).  But political concerns do have to be balanced against the larger, long-view Constitutional issues at stake - and as may be expected, the political issues do not hold the more weighty position.

      If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace. Thomas Paine

      by WestCider on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 07:38:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site