image: fix the filibuster

Why We’re Suing the Senate Over the Filibuster

I spent 12 of the most interesting years of my life in Congress and I grew to love the place. I was fortunate to work with people of good will and good ideas in both political parties; service was particularly satisfying when we were able to cross Washington’s partisan divide to help move the country forward.

Sadly, those moments are rare these days. Ideological purists in both parties appear to have taken control of Congress and of the national dialogue. Voices of moderation and conciliation are being drowned out on the airwaves and inside the Capitol; critical problems are going unaddressed.

Things are especially bad in the Senate. Both parties have figured out that the minority, currently the Republicans, can use the filibuster rule to pretty much shut the place down.

Here’s how the obstructionists work. To begin debate on a bill, senators must first adopt a “motion to proceed.” But debate on that motion, as on most everything else that comes before the Senate, is unlimited unless at least 60 senators vote to end it. That means a minority of as few as 41 can block any action simply by refusing to permit a vote on the motion to proceed.

Thus the filibuster does not extend debate, which is its supposed purpose. Instead, it stops debate.

» Want to help restore order to the Senate? Sign our petition to show that Americans are fed up with the filibuster.

In recent years, filibusters have prevented senators from acting on presidential nominations for judgeships and other offices, as well as bills to hold down interest rates on student loans, force the rich to pay their fair share in income taxes, and end tax subsidies to oil companies. Rather than debating bills and exchanging ideas on the floor, in view of the public and press, senators are pushed by the filibuster into back room deal-making sessions to get a vote on even the most routine legislation .

When the 111th Congress opened last year, the filibuster rule even denied my friend Sen. Tom Udall a chance to make the case for filibuster reform to his colleagues; the minority used the filibuster rule to block discussion on Udall’s proposal to change the rule.

Simply put, that’s unacceptable. It’s an affront to our democracy and not the way the Senate was supposed to work. And it has real consequences for real people.

That’s why Common Cause is filing suit today to stop it. [Download and read our legal complaint as a PDF.]

Our lawsuit argues that the Constitution sets out super-majority requirements only in special cases, to override a presidential veto or ratify a treaty, for example. It does not permit the Senate to require more than a simple majority just to begin debate; and the Supreme Court already has said that a legislative body’s rules cannot conflict with the Constitution.

Congressional plaintiffs in our suit include Reps. John Lewis, D-GA, Michael Michaud, D-ME, Hank Johnson, D-GA, and Keith Ellison, D-MN.

Our other plaintiffs are three young people who recently put themselves through college, graduating with honors, after being brought toAmericaby immigrant parents. They are eager to assume the rights and responsibilities of adulthood and of U.S.citizenship; one even wants to join the brave Americans who daily put their lives on the line in the Marine Corps.

But their path ahead has been blocked by the Senate’s refusal to debate and vote on a bill, the DREAM Act, that has passed the House and is supported by a majority of senators.

The filibuster also is denying justice to tens of thousands of Americans. Twelve of President Obama’s nominees for vacant federal judgeships, all with bipartisan support and nominated in states where the backlog of pending cases is so large that court administrators have declared a “judicial emergency,” are being kept off the Senate floor by filibustering senators.

We had hoped that an agreement worked out by Sens. Reid and McConnell, the Senate Democratic and Republican leaders, at the beginning of this Congress in January 2011 would go a long way toward solving the filibuster problem. The Reid/McConnell arrangement has had little effect however, and the Senate remains too often hamstrung.

Open and at times extended debates are a Senate tradition worth preserving. There is no basis for the claims, made by some filibuster defenders,  that reform of the filibuster rule would permit the majority in the Senate to run roughshod over the minority. In today’s Senate, it’s the few who are running roughshod over the American people. If the Senate won’t address the problem, the courts must.

» Support this cause? Please LIKE the Fix the Filibuster page on Facebook

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Twitter Digg Delicious Stumbleupon Technorati Facebook Email

87 Responses to “Why We’re Suing the Senate Over the Filibuster”

  1. Bruce in Jersey May 15, 2012 at 5:30 am

    I’ve just downloaded and read the filed complaint. Bravo! Paradoxically, though, it has left me baffled: why has no one done this before? The complaint spells out so clearly the outrageously antidemocratic effect of the Filibuster Rule you have to wonder: how has it stood this long? I had no idea that supermajority voting requirements were denounced in the Federalist Papers, and rejected (albeit by negative implication) by the Framers of the Constitution except in the narrowly defined cases described in the complaint.

    I am curious as to the manner in which the suit was filed – apparently without fanfare, and late enough on Monday that no major media outlet reported on it. (As near as I can tell, Politico was first to post the story, at 4:21 pm.) I have to hope that Common Cause is planning a press conference today (Tuesday). This could well be one of the most important court cases in modern history. It surely will go to the Supreme Court, and if it fails there, it ought to be the springboard for a campaign to amend the Constitution. Call it “The Restore Democracy Amendment.” Indeed, I would urge Common Cause to have such an amendment drafted and ready to go and mentioned every possible time the lawsuit is discussed – so that people will have something to rally around if the Court rules against the plaintiffs.

    Anyway, thank you for doing this. I’ll be renewing my membership in Common Cause.

  2. Bruce in Jersey May 15, 2012 at 5:30 am

    I’ve just downloaded and read the filed complaint. Bravo! Paradoxically, though, it has left me baffled: why has no one done this before? The complaint spells out so clearly the outrageously antidemocratic effect of the Filibuster Rule you have to wonder: how has it stood this long? I had no idea that supermajority voting requirements were denounced in the Federalist Papers, and rejected (albeit by negative implication) by the Framers of the Constitution except in the narrowly defined cases described in the complaint.

    I am curious as to the manner in which the suit was filed – apparently without fanfare, and late enough on Monday that no major media outlet reported on it. (As near as I can tell, Politico was first to post the story, at 4:21 pm.) I have to hope that Common Cause is planning a press conference today (Tuesday). This could well be one of the most important court cases in modern history. It surely will go to the Supreme Court, and if it fails there, it ought to be the springboard for a campaign to amend the Constitution. Call it “The Restore Democracy Amendment.” Indeed, I would urge Common Cause to have such an amendment drafted and ready to go and mentioned every possible time the lawsuit is discussed – so that people will have something to rally around if the Court rules against the plaintiffs.

    Anyway, thank you for doing this. I’ll be renewing my membership in Common Cause.

  3. Bruce in Jersey May 15, 2012 at 5:30 am

    I’ve just downloaded and read the filed complaint. Bravo! Paradoxically, though, it has left me baffled: why has no one done this before? The complaint spells out so clearly the outrageously antidemocratic effect of the Filibuster Rule you have to wonder: how has it stood this long? I had no idea that supermajority voting requirements were denounced in the Federalist Papers, and rejected (albeit by negative implication) by the Framers of the Constitution except in the narrowly defined cases described in the complaint.

    I am curious as to the manner in which the suit was filed – apparently without fanfare, and late enough on Monday that no major media outlet reported on it. (As near as I can tell, Politico was first to post the story, at 4:21 pm.) I have to hope that Common Cause is planning a press conference today (Tuesday). This could well be one of the most important court cases in modern history. It surely will go to the Supreme Court, and if it fails there, it ought to be the springboard for a campaign to amend the Constitution. Call it “The Restore Democracy Amendment.” Indeed, I would urge Common Cause to have such an amendment drafted and ready to go and mentioned every possible time the lawsuit is discussed – so that people will have something to rally around if the Court rules against the plaintiffs.

    Anyway, thank you for doing this. I’ll be renewing my membership in Common Cause.

  4. Nikki Willoughby May 15, 2012 at 9:25 am

    Bruce, Common Cause is holding a press conference at 9:30 this morning to announce the filibuster lawsuit. Check out our Facebook page for updates and pictures: https://www.facebook.com/fixfilibuster

  5. Nikki Willoughby May 15, 2012 at 9:25 am

    Bruce, Common Cause is holding a press conference at 9:30 this morning to announce the filibuster lawsuit. Check out our Facebook page for updates and pictures: https://www.facebook.com/fixfilibuster

  6. Nikki Willoughby May 15, 2012 at 9:25 am

    Bruce, Common Cause is holding a press conference at 9:30 this morning to announce the filibuster lawsuit. Check out our Facebook page for updates and pictures: https://www.facebook.com/fixfilibuster

  7. Good cause, lousy rhetoric:

    “Ideological purists in both parties appear to have taken control of Congress and of the national dialogue. Voices of moderation and conciliation are being drowned out on the airwaves and inside the Capitol; critical problems are going unaddressed.”

    The ideological purists are right wing extremists whose idea of compromise is for the Democrats to give in to GOP demands.

    Who are the ideologically purist Democrats that are making things difficult? What are the issues? President Obama has met the GOP more than halfway when negotiations were in order. And in return he gets more of the same.

    Leave out the phony bipartisan canard and call out the people need to be called out.

  8. Good cause, lousy rhetoric:

    “Ideological purists in both parties appear to have taken control of Congress and of the national dialogue. Voices of moderation and conciliation are being drowned out on the airwaves and inside the Capitol; critical problems are going unaddressed.”

    The ideological purists are right wing extremists whose idea of compromise is for the Democrats to give in to GOP demands.

    Who are the ideologically purist Democrats that are making things difficult? What are the issues? President Obama has met the GOP more than halfway when negotiations were in order. And in return he gets more of the same.

    Leave out the phony bipartisan canard and call out the people need to be called out.

  9. Good cause, lousy rhetoric:

    “Ideological purists in both parties appear to have taken control of Congress and of the national dialogue. Voices of moderation and conciliation are being drowned out on the airwaves and inside the Capitol; critical problems are going unaddressed.”

    The ideological purists are right wing extremists whose idea of compromise is for the Democrats to give in to GOP demands.

    Who are the ideologically purist Democrats that are making things difficult? What are the issues? President Obama has met the GOP more than halfway when negotiations were in order. And in return he gets more of the same.

    Leave out the phony bipartisan canard and call out the people need to be called out.

  10. Chris Darling May 15, 2012 at 1:23 pm

    On April 27, Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann had an op-ed in the Washington Post titled, “Let’s Face It, The Republicans Are The Problem.” So, while I think your suit is an action that is needed, I cannot agree that both parties are behind the tactic of filibustering to stop all action in the Senate. The Republicans are the problem and anybody who says otherwise is not paying attention.

  11. Chris Darling May 15, 2012 at 1:23 pm

    On April 27, Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann had an op-ed in the Washington Post titled, “Let’s Face It, The Republicans Are The Problem.” So, while I think your suit is an action that is needed, I cannot agree that both parties are behind the tactic of filibustering to stop all action in the Senate. The Republicans are the problem and anybody who says otherwise is not paying attention.

  12. Chris Darling May 15, 2012 at 1:23 pm

    On April 27, Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann had an op-ed in the Washington Post titled, “Let’s Face It, The Republicans Are The Problem.” So, while I think your suit is an action that is needed, I cannot agree that both parties are behind the tactic of filibustering to stop all action in the Senate. The Republicans are the problem and anybody who says otherwise is not paying attention.

  13. I read the legal complaint. It’s a joke. Unless you all get some politician masquerading as a judge (a Democrat appointee), this suit should be laughed out of court and Common Cause should be sued for filing a frivolous lawsuit and wasting taxpayer money.

    • Stephen Duskin, Esq. May 15, 2012 at 2:27 pm

      No, Scipio, YOU are a joke. That complaint will get by a Motion for Summary Judgment in any courtroom in the country, except perhaps for the loonies in the 5th Circuit. Go get a law degree before you spread your manure, I mean, opinion on matters on which you know nothing.

      • First off, this is a political issue, not a legal one. Therefore, the courts should dump this suit without so much as a by-your-leave. Second, the complaint undercuts its argument by citing Article I, Section 5, Clause 2, as it is clear Rule XXII very much fits in with powers the Senate has, to make its own rules.

        By the way, the House requires a super-majority in order to waive the rules to pass a bill there out of order, something that is also not explicitly in the Constitution, but does fit in with Article I, Section 5, Clause 2. In fact, the four U.S. Representatives that are a part of this lawsuit know this is true; their inclusion as part of this lawsuit is quite hypocritical.

        One doesn’t need a law degree to see this suit is a waste of taxpayer money, and Common Cause should be punished for doing so.

        • Actually, Scorpio, the House rule on waiving the rules? That’s a House rule that can be overturned by a majority vote. Thus, it’s not really a supermajority requirement. See Scaggs v. Carle.

          • Thanks for making my point. The Senate rules are just that, rules. Constitutionally valid. Filing a lawsuit to claim the Senate rules are somehow unconstitutional is frivolous, a waste of taxpayer dollars, and Common Cause should be punished for it. I’ll add that all of the Common Cause lawyers pushing this suit should be disbarred.

        • Scipio: Just because the Senate can make “Rules” does not mean it can make rules that violate the Constitution. What if the Senate made a rule that to pass health reform, there had to be a 95 to 5 vote? The same thing is happening here. The Senate has made a rule that in order for a bill to pass, you need 2/3 support.

          I’m an attorney and have always thought this case should be filed.

    • Yes it is a legal issue. The constitution implies majority (not super majority) rule in the senate. That is why the position of the vice president exists, to be a breaking vote if there’s a tie. There is no point in having a tie breaking position if rules were to prevent a tie from ever happening.

  14. I read the legal complaint. It’s a joke. Unless you all get some politician masquerading as a judge (a Democrat appointee), this suit should be laughed out of court and Common Cause should be sued for filing a frivolous lawsuit and wasting taxpayer money.

    • Stephen Duskin, Esq. May 15, 2012 at 2:27 pm

      No, Scipio, YOU are a joke. That complaint will get by a Motion for Summary Judgment in any courtroom in the country, except perhaps for the loonies in the 5th Circuit. Go get a law degree before you spread your manure, I mean, opinion on matters on which you know nothing.

      • First off, this is a political issue, not a legal one. Therefore, the courts should dump this suit without so much as a by-your-leave. Second, the complaint undercuts its argument by citing Article I, Section 5, Clause 2, as it is clear Rule XXII very much fits in with powers the Senate has, to make its own rules.

        By the way, the House requires a super-majority in order to waive the rules to pass a bill there out of order, something that is also not explicitly in the Constitution, but does fit in with Article I, Section 5, Clause 2. In fact, the four U.S. Representatives that are a part of this lawsuit know this is true; their inclusion as part of this lawsuit is quite hypocritical.

        One doesn’t need a law degree to see this suit is a waste of taxpayer money, and Common Cause should be punished for doing so.

        • Actually, Scorpio, the House rule on waiving the rules? That’s a House rule that can be overturned by a majority vote. Thus, it’s not really a supermajority requirement. See Scaggs v. Carle.

          • Thanks for making my point. The Senate rules are just that, rules. Constitutionally valid. Filing a lawsuit to claim the Senate rules are somehow unconstitutional is frivolous, a waste of taxpayer dollars, and Common Cause should be punished for it. I’ll add that all of the Common Cause lawyers pushing this suit should be disbarred.

        • Scipio: Just because the Senate can make “Rules” does not mean it can make rules that violate the Constitution. What if the Senate made a rule that to pass health reform, there had to be a 95 to 5 vote? The same thing is happening here. The Senate has made a rule that in order for a bill to pass, you need 2/3 support.

          I’m an attorney and have always thought this case should be filed.

    • Yes it is a legal issue. The constitution implies majority (not super majority) rule in the senate. That is why the position of the vice president exists, to be a breaking vote if there’s a tie. There is no point in having a tie breaking position if rules were to prevent a tie from ever happening.

  15. I read the legal complaint. It’s a joke. Unless you all get some politician masquerading as a judge (a Democrat appointee), this suit should be laughed out of court and Common Cause should be sued for filing a frivolous lawsuit and wasting taxpayer money.

    • Stephen Duskin, Esq. May 15, 2012 at 2:27 pm

      No, Scipio, YOU are a joke. That complaint will get by a Motion for Summary Judgment in any courtroom in the country, except perhaps for the loonies in the 5th Circuit. Go get a law degree before you spread your manure, I mean, opinion on matters on which you know nothing.

      • First off, this is a political issue, not a legal one. Therefore, the courts should dump this suit without so much as a by-your-leave. Second, the complaint undercuts its argument by citing Article I, Section 5, Clause 2, as it is clear Rule XXII very much fits in with powers the Senate has, to make its own rules.

        By the way, the House requires a super-majority in order to waive the rules to pass a bill there out of order, something that is also not explicitly in the Constitution, but does fit in with Article I, Section 5, Clause 2. In fact, the four U.S. Representatives that are a part of this lawsuit know this is true; their inclusion as part of this lawsuit is quite hypocritical.

        One doesn’t need a law degree to see this suit is a waste of taxpayer money, and Common Cause should be punished for doing so.

        • Actually, Scorpio, the House rule on waiving the rules? That’s a House rule that can be overturned by a majority vote. Thus, it’s not really a supermajority requirement. See Scaggs v. Carle.

          • Thanks for making my point. The Senate rules are just that, rules. Constitutionally valid. Filing a lawsuit to claim the Senate rules are somehow unconstitutional is frivolous, a waste of taxpayer dollars, and Common Cause should be punished for it. I’ll add that all of the Common Cause lawyers pushing this suit should be disbarred.

        • Scipio: Just because the Senate can make “Rules” does not mean it can make rules that violate the Constitution. What if the Senate made a rule that to pass health reform, there had to be a 95 to 5 vote? The same thing is happening here. The Senate has made a rule that in order for a bill to pass, you need 2/3 support.

          I’m an attorney and have always thought this case should be filed.

    • Yes it is a legal issue. The constitution implies majority (not super majority) rule in the senate. That is why the position of the vice president exists, to be a breaking vote if there’s a tie. There is no point in having a tie breaking position if rules were to prevent a tie from ever happening.

  16. Excuse me but we need a budget now. That’s your job.

  17. Excuse me but we need a budget now. That’s your job.

  18. Excuse me but we need a budget now. That’s your job.

  19. I very concerned that you are not paying enough attention to the new voting laws in many states that will prevent many people from voting. All I hear about in the news and in e-mails is about your fight against ALEC. And now this. ALEC and the filibuster are serious problems, but these problems are not going to be solved before the Fall Election. It seems to me that if organizations like yours do not start focusing on these voting laws we could well lose the Fall Election, as ALEC is, I’m sure, hoping.

    I hope Common Cause will turn their resources to this very fundamental problem as soon as possible.

  20. I very concerned that you are not paying enough attention to the new voting laws in many states that will prevent many people from voting. All I hear about in the news and in e-mails is about your fight against ALEC. And now this. ALEC and the filibuster are serious problems, but these problems are not going to be solved before the Fall Election. It seems to me that if organizations like yours do not start focusing on these voting laws we could well lose the Fall Election, as ALEC is, I’m sure, hoping.

    I hope Common Cause will turn their resources to this very fundamental problem as soon as possible.

  21. I very concerned that you are not paying enough attention to the new voting laws in many states that will prevent many people from voting. All I hear about in the news and in e-mails is about your fight against ALEC. And now this. ALEC and the filibuster are serious problems, but these problems are not going to be solved before the Fall Election. It seems to me that if organizations like yours do not start focusing on these voting laws we could well lose the Fall Election, as ALEC is, I’m sure, hoping.

    I hope Common Cause will turn their resources to this very fundamental problem as soon as possible.

  22. Please fix your link to the petition — getting a 404 error message at this writing.

  23. Please fix your link to the petition — getting a 404 error message at this writing.

  24. Please fix your link to the petition — getting a 404 error message at this writing.

  25. Irony, thy name is Common Cause.

    Where was “Filibuster Reform,” when the Democrats held up multiple Bush Judicial nominees?

    Hint: if Democrats whing about it, Common Cause follows through.

    • Is that supposed to be a joke?
      Dems fillabustered guys like John Bolton as UN ambassador when he said he thought the terrorist of 9/11 hit the wronge building. How long did bush go without all his appointees in place? And when clowns like bolton were fillibustered it was for a reason (like his worthiness to serve) as opposed to being something trivial like … i didnt like my seat assignment on AF1 ….

  26. Irony, thy name is Common Cause.

    Where was “Filibuster Reform,” when the Democrats held up multiple Bush Judicial nominees?

    Hint: if Democrats whing about it, Common Cause follows through.

    • Is that supposed to be a joke?
      Dems fillabustered guys like John Bolton as UN ambassador when he said he thought the terrorist of 9/11 hit the wronge building. How long did bush go without all his appointees in place? And when clowns like bolton were fillibustered it was for a reason (like his worthiness to serve) as opposed to being something trivial like … i didnt like my seat assignment on AF1 ….

  27. Irony, thy name is Common Cause.

    Where was “Filibuster Reform,” when the Democrats held up multiple Bush Judicial nominees?

    Hint: if Democrats whing about it, Common Cause follows through.

    • Is that supposed to be a joke?
      Dems fillabustered guys like John Bolton as UN ambassador when he said he thought the terrorist of 9/11 hit the wronge building. How long did bush go without all his appointees in place? And when clowns like bolton were fillibustered it was for a reason (like his worthiness to serve) as opposed to being something trivial like … i didnt like my seat assignment on AF1 ….

  28. A fundamentally flawed and spurious argument. A vote for cloture is not the same as a vote for passage. Period. A person does not have a tort due to a failure of a law to be passed. Period. The courts do not have oversight of Legislative rules. Period.

    I hope the lawyers who file this end up on the wrong side of an ethics complaint for a frivolous petition.

  29. A fundamentally flawed and spurious argument. A vote for cloture is not the same as a vote for passage. Period. A person does not have a tort due to a failure of a law to be passed. Period. The courts do not have oversight of Legislative rules. Period.

    I hope the lawyers who file this end up on the wrong side of an ethics complaint for a frivolous petition.

  30. A fundamentally flawed and spurious argument. A vote for cloture is not the same as a vote for passage. Period. A person does not have a tort due to a failure of a law to be passed. Period. The courts do not have oversight of Legislative rules. Period.

    I hope the lawyers who file this end up on the wrong side of an ethics complaint for a frivolous petition.

  31. This is completely ridiculous.
    Article 1, Section 5, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the United States says, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings…”
    So to try and sue a constitutionality suit against the filibuster, a rule of proceeding adopted by the Senate, is either
    just a ploy for attention
    or
    proof that the filers of the suit haven’t even bothered to read the Constitution.

    Either way, it’s a waste of the court’s time and the tax-payer’s money. I predict that no judge will even hear this case; it will be dismissed with prejudice in motions.

    • Again, the Senate does not have carte blanche to set its rules. The Complaint cites case law holding that Senate rules cannot contradict the Constitution.

      The effect of the fillibuster rule is that something needs 60 votes to pass. That’s unconstitutional.

    • Article 1, Section 3, Clause 4:
      “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”
      This implies that the senate should be ruled by a majority. There is no point in having a tie-breaker if there would be no ties to break.

  32. This is completely ridiculous.
    Article 1, Section 5, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the United States says, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings…”
    So to try and sue a constitutionality suit against the filibuster, a rule of proceeding adopted by the Senate, is either
    just a ploy for attention
    or
    proof that the filers of the suit haven’t even bothered to read the Constitution.

    Either way, it’s a waste of the court’s time and the tax-payer’s money. I predict that no judge will even hear this case; it will be dismissed with prejudice in motions.

    • Again, the Senate does not have carte blanche to set its rules. The Complaint cites case law holding that Senate rules cannot contradict the Constitution.

      The effect of the fillibuster rule is that something needs 60 votes to pass. That’s unconstitutional.

    • Article 1, Section 3, Clause 4:
      “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”
      This implies that the senate should be ruled by a majority. There is no point in having a tie-breaker if there would be no ties to break.

  33. This is completely ridiculous.
    Article 1, Section 5, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the United States says, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings…”
    So to try and sue a constitutionality suit against the filibuster, a rule of proceeding adopted by the Senate, is either
    just a ploy for attention
    or
    proof that the filers of the suit haven’t even bothered to read the Constitution.

    Either way, it’s a waste of the court’s time and the tax-payer’s money. I predict that no judge will even hear this case; it will be dismissed with prejudice in motions.

    • Again, the Senate does not have carte blanche to set its rules. The Complaint cites case law holding that Senate rules cannot contradict the Constitution.

      The effect of the fillibuster rule is that something needs 60 votes to pass. That’s unconstitutional.

    • Article 1, Section 3, Clause 4:
      “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”
      This implies that the senate should be ruled by a majority. There is no point in having a tie-breaker if there would be no ties to break.

  34. It is so funny that you removed this page and that it’s only available now through Google cache:
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zoGBfeFPnLgJ:www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx%3Fc%3DdkLNK1MQIwG%26b%3D4773613%26ct%3D384721+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    I wonder why? Could it be because it says,
    “Common Cause strongly opposes any effort by Senate leaders to outlaw filibusters of judicial nominees to silence a vigorous debate about the qualifications of these nominees, short-circuiting the Senate’s historic role in the nomination approval process.
    ‘The filibuster shouldn’t be jettisoned simply because it’s inconvenient to the majority party’s goals,’ said Common Cause President Chellie Pingree. ‘That’s abuse of power.’”

    So when getting rid of the filibuster would have been beneficial to Republicans, you were 100% opposed. But now that it would benefit the Democrats, you are 100% for it even to the point of filing a frivolous lawsuit over it.

    Yeah…keep claiming to be nonpartisan. LOL

  35. It is so funny that you removed this page and that it’s only available now through Google cache:
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zoGBfeFPnLgJ:www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx%3Fc%3DdkLNK1MQIwG%26b%3D4773613%26ct%3D384721+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    I wonder why? Could it be because it says,
    “Common Cause strongly opposes any effort by Senate leaders to outlaw filibusters of judicial nominees to silence a vigorous debate about the qualifications of these nominees, short-circuiting the Senate’s historic role in the nomination approval process.
    ‘The filibuster shouldn’t be jettisoned simply because it’s inconvenient to the majority party’s goals,’ said Common Cause President Chellie Pingree. ‘That’s abuse of power.’”

    So when getting rid of the filibuster would have been beneficial to Republicans, you were 100% opposed. But now that it would benefit the Democrats, you are 100% for it even to the point of filing a frivolous lawsuit over it.

    Yeah…keep claiming to be nonpartisan. LOL

  36. It is so funny that you removed this page and that it’s only available now through Google cache:
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zoGBfeFPnLgJ:www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx%3Fc%3DdkLNK1MQIwG%26b%3D4773613%26ct%3D384721+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    I wonder why? Could it be because it says,
    “Common Cause strongly opposes any effort by Senate leaders to outlaw filibusters of judicial nominees to silence a vigorous debate about the qualifications of these nominees, short-circuiting the Senate’s historic role in the nomination approval process.
    ‘The filibuster shouldn’t be jettisoned simply because it’s inconvenient to the majority party’s goals,’ said Common Cause President Chellie Pingree. ‘That’s abuse of power.’”

    So when getting rid of the filibuster would have been beneficial to Republicans, you were 100% opposed. But now that it would benefit the Democrats, you are 100% for it even to the point of filing a frivolous lawsuit over it.

    Yeah…keep claiming to be nonpartisan. LOL

  37. It is amazing how congressman who create laws join in with lawbreaking, identity stealing, irs money stealing, non-voting, illegal immigrants to sue the rest of America because “I didn’t get my way”. Even though at least two thirds of the country are against the dream act for children who should be blaming their parents for “breaking into our house” because they found an “unlocked door.” they because our house is better than the one they live in. Why don’t we invite everybody who has a sad life to America for free education, free food, free medical care, free IRS money, and all the lawsuits they can file. We already have half the country they doesn’t pay taxes. I’m part of the that 50% that pays taxes. I don’t mind increasing my taxes to 75% so I can support more of these folks.

    • Poll after poll after poll show at least 55% support for the Dream Act. 66% against? Which ass did you pull that estimate out from?
      Free public education is a result of a supreme court case. Medical care is not free, free IRS money? What?

      You might want to shape up your knowledge of immigration laws, rather than scream “they took our jobs”…

  38. It is amazing how congressman who create laws join in with lawbreaking, identity stealing, irs money stealing, non-voting, illegal immigrants to sue the rest of America because “I didn’t get my way”. Even though at least two thirds of the country are against the dream act for children who should be blaming their parents for “breaking into our house” because they found an “unlocked door.” they because our house is better than the one they live in. Why don’t we invite everybody who has a sad life to America for free education, free food, free medical care, free IRS money, and all the lawsuits they can file. We already have half the country they doesn’t pay taxes. I’m part of the that 50% that pays taxes. I don’t mind increasing my taxes to 75% so I can support more of these folks.

    • Poll after poll after poll show at least 55% support for the Dream Act. 66% against? Which ass did you pull that estimate out from?
      Free public education is a result of a supreme court case. Medical care is not free, free IRS money? What?

      You might want to shape up your knowledge of immigration laws, rather than scream “they took our jobs”…

  39. It is amazing how congressman who create laws join in with lawbreaking, identity stealing, irs money stealing, non-voting, illegal immigrants to sue the rest of America because “I didn’t get my way”. Even though at least two thirds of the country are against the dream act for children who should be blaming their parents for “breaking into our house” because they found an “unlocked door.” they because our house is better than the one they live in. Why don’t we invite everybody who has a sad life to America for free education, free food, free medical care, free IRS money, and all the lawsuits they can file. We already have half the country they doesn’t pay taxes. I’m part of the that 50% that pays taxes. I don’t mind increasing my taxes to 75% so I can support more of these folks.

    • Poll after poll after poll show at least 55% support for the Dream Act. 66% against? Which ass did you pull that estimate out from?
      Free public education is a result of a supreme court case. Medical care is not free, free IRS money? What?

      You might want to shape up your knowledge of immigration laws, rather than scream “they took our jobs”…

  40. Hello there! Do you know if they make any plugins to assist with SEO? I’m trying to get my blog to rank for some targeted keywords but I’m not seeing very good results. If you know of any please share. Cheers!

  41. Hey there! Someone in my Facebook group shared this website with us so I came to check it out. I’m definitely enjoying the information. I’m bookmarking and will be tweeting this to my followers! Fantastic blog and great style and design.

  42. My partner and I stumbled over here by a different website and thought I might check things out. I like what I see so i am just following you. Look forward to looking over your web page again.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Dream Act students sue to stop Senate filibuster - ALIPAC - May 15, 2012

    [...] [...]

  2. Dream Act students sue to stop Senate filibuster - ALIPAC - May 15, 2012

    [...] [...]

  3. Dream Act students sue to stop Senate filibuster - ALIPAC - May 15, 2012

    [...] [...]

  4. A Futile Suit Against the Filibuster | FavStocks - May 16, 2012

    [...] Common Cause’s Bob Edgar explains the suit here. Ian Millhiser likes the argument but doesn’t think the suit is justiciable. Gergory Koger is [...]

  5. A Futile Suit Against the Filibuster | FavStocks - May 16, 2012

    [...] Common Cause’s Bob Edgar explains the suit here. Ian Millhiser likes the argument but doesn’t think the suit is justiciable. Gergory Koger is [...]

  6. A Futile Suit Against the Filibuster | FavStocks - May 16, 2012

    [...] Common Cause’s Bob Edgar explains the suit here. Ian Millhiser likes the argument but doesn’t think the suit is justiciable. Gergory Koger is [...]

  7. “The Constitution v. the Filibuster” or “It’s Obvious, You Idiot!” | - May 21, 2012

    [...] Filibuster” or “It’s Obvious, You Idiot!”   Last week Common Cause filed a lawsuit to end the filibuster rule in the U.S. Senate. The filibuster has been a growing problem [...]

  8. “The Constitution v. the Filibuster” or “It’s Obvious, You Idiot!” | - May 21, 2012

    [...] Filibuster” or “It’s Obvious, You Idiot!”   Last week Common Cause filed a lawsuit to end the filibuster rule in the U.S. Senate. The filibuster has been a growing problem [...]

  9. “The Constitution v. the Filibuster” or “It’s Obvious, You Idiot!” | - May 21, 2012

    [...] Filibuster” or “It’s Obvious, You Idiot!”   Last week Common Cause filed a lawsuit to end the filibuster rule in the U.S. Senate. The filibuster has been a growing problem [...]