[ccmay]

Fine. That will make it all so much easier to reverse when we have both houses of Congress and the Presidency in just a couple of years.

[sr4402]

It's called the Nuclear Option. The majority calls for the parliamentarian for a change of the rules. I think it takes 50% to change the rules. The only problem is that this ticks off the long term senators as they know the next majority party can change the rules in their favor the next time.

Call it the Rule of Unintended Consequences.

[FroggyTheGremlim]

Remember when they all made fun of Sarah Palin when she said the VP is the President of the Senate? I remember.

Hah! They said. She’s so dumb. Doesn’t even know the Constitution.

[hoosier hick]

The US court system neither will nor should rule on things like the constitutionality of a de facto supermajority rule.

My objection to this characterization is that if the use/abuse of Senate rules result in a violation of a delineated Constitutional requirement, it should be challenged in court. The threat of a filibuster against a Supreme Court nominee is such a case. The Constitution clearly calls for a majority vote, so a filibuster on a nominee is a violation. Neither party will challenge, though, as both want to be able to use it to torpedo nominees.....

hh

[Eagle Eye]

Personally, I think that someone ought to ******* about two dozen Democratic senators and see what they have to say after that.