When the use of the House or Senate Rule violates the Constitution, the Court can tell the House or Senate what to do. See Powell v. McCormick, where the Court "reversed" the failure of the House to seat its corrupt but overwhelmingly reelected Congressman from Harlem.
John / Billybob
Sure, I can understand that. If rules passed by the Senate contradict another part of the Constitution. I just don't see how requiring a super-majority in a rules commitee violates the constitution. If the super-majority was required for the general vote, that would be different. I suppose the courts could theoretically extend the principle to a committee. It wouldn't have to stop there even.