Could the Democrats ask the Supreme Court to rule on the rule?

[kentuck]

If the Repubs carry through with their threat to do away with the filibuster on judges? Would it be in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court rule on a case that might affect their own body and branch of government? Would they be able to interpret the law as created by one Party of one branch of government other than themselves?

[mike_c]

1. the constitution explicitly leaves the senate rules...

...up to the senate. This is not a matter of law, but rather one of the customary operating rules of the senate-- essentially an element of parlimentary procedure. The court has no jurisdiction.

[tkmorris]

2. As I understand it, no

It is written into the Constitution itself that the Senate shall operate under rules to be determined by the Senate. The implication seems to be that any other branch trying to dictate to the Senate how to operate is itself violating the Constitution.

[Clark2008]

3. Then why don't the Dems point out that blivet, as part of the Executive

Branch, is trying to dictate how the Senate is operating and have the idiot impeached?

(yeah, yeah... can't blame me for dreaming)

[kentuck]

4. But if the rules are being broken, who decides?

Just as the Repubs said the rules were being broken in the Florida election and asked the Supreme Court to intervene?

[Toots]

13. They weren't rules but laws.

Election laws and the Extreme Court ruled that they were discriminatory because votes were counted in different ways in different counties. That is how they justified themselves but said it could not establish "precedent" even though that is the whole purpose of the Supreme Court.

[kaygore]

5. The Democrats must leave if the Repugs end the filibuster

They must walk out en mass and they must go directly back to their states and tell the people what has happened and why they refuse to participate in the charade that will then be the U.S. Senate. They won't have any power any more nor will any senators. All power will be in the executive, so it won't really matter if they are in the Senate merely being window dressing.


They will be better off in their home states getting the message across unfiltered by the "fair and balanced" MSM.

[ThomWV]

6. I Agree

I think this is the only reasonable approach to what is likely to come. In a very loose sense it will be like the excaped Texas Legislators who tried to stop the redistricting down there.

If all of the Democratic Senators and Congress Persons too for that matter, simply go home the Government would come to a complete halt. The Democrats should be shouting all the way to the home station that the Republicans had just forced the shut down the Government again, just like the did when Clinton was President. The people will remember and they will react just as they did last time.

[Internut]

7. And when the "excaped" Texas

Legislators did that trick, did it help anything?

[kaygore]

8. This is different

Texans don't care by and large. Molly Ivins was on Now tonight and she pointed out that the far right and business have a strangle hold on Texas. The very fact that Bush's ratings are so low and that Faux News is losing viewers shows that Americans are fed up. Further, Americans don't want to lose the balance of power.

This is very different.

[Sgent]

9. I wonder

although the constitution requires that rules be adopted by the respective chambers -- it requires it by a 2/3 majority. If a change in rules results from a mere majority vote, there *might* be grounds for the supreme court to step in.

That being said, the Supreme Ct is not gonna want to do it if at all possible. They are (rightly IMHO) extraordianrily recalcitrent to involve themselves in the details of business of other brances of government.

[onenote]

12. where does it say 2/3 majority to set rules?

Articl I, Section 5 says "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member." In other words, the 2/3 requirement only applies to expelling a member, not to setting the rules.

onenote

[Toots]

14. That just says how rules are established not what rules are in effect.

There are already Senate Rules and somewhere in them I would wager there is a ruling on how new rules are determined or old rules overturned. those are the ones we should be discussing.

[kaygore]

15. Very perceptive

Good thinking!

[Pepperbelly]

10. To what end? Another 5-4? nt

[Doctor_J]

11. Yeah, that would work

the scotus has no integrity whatsoever, they would quickly rule for *