[SERKIT]

In contrast, the power of each House to make its own rules clearly applies to matters PURELY internal to its workings. The language in the Constitution is, "shall be the Judge of Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own members ... may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."

Good point, but could the Supreme Court step in if the rules turn out to be unconstitutional? Could the Supremes say to the Senate "Wait a minute, you can't de facto amend the Constitution with the shifting sands of rules that come and go based on political conveniences of the times!".

[Cboldt]

Good point, but could the Supreme Court step in if the rules turn out to be unconstitutional? Could the Supremes say to the Senate "Wait a minute, you can't de facto amend the Constitution with the shifting sands of rules that come and go based on political conveniences of the times!".

Only if a case is brought to it. And at a glance, it is as likely as not the Supreme Court would find the matter non-justiciable. That's a fancy term for "we won't get into it because it is outside of the power of the court."

As a practical matter, this WILL be settled politically. But there are good arguments to get it into court, and if it got into court, it is on principle (i.e., if SCOTUS applied the Constitution), a slam dunk winner for the GOP.