i think that common cause actually has a pretty strong historical argument.
but i also think that the courts won't touch this one. if there is to be filibuster reform, it must happen in the senate. the problem is that reform is going to be strenuously opposed by whoever happens to be in the minority at the time reform comes up, which makes reform difficult to pull off. personally, i think the best solution is for the senate to abolish the filibuster but to make the rule change effective years in the future (maybe six years, to put the effective date past the next election date of every member of the senate). that way neither party will know whether it will be in the majority or minority when the rule change happens.
(via memeorandum)
but i also think that the courts won't touch this one. if there is to be filibuster reform, it must happen in the senate. the problem is that reform is going to be strenuously opposed by whoever happens to be in the minority at the time reform comes up, which makes reform difficult to pull off. personally, i think the best solution is for the senate to abolish the filibuster but to make the rule change effective years in the future (maybe six years, to put the effective date past the next election date of every member of the senate). that way neither party will know whether it will be in the majority or minority when the rule change happens.
(via memeorandum)
