Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  



Common Cause claims filibuster unconstitutional

| No Comments

The lawsuit to abolish the filibuster is frivolous, both on the law—James Fallows manages to do an entire Atlantic story without mentioning "political question" or standing doctrine or asking anyone who might actually know a little bit about constitutional law—and on the facts. Fallows and Common Cause appear unaware that the requirement of a 60-vote majority for cloture is a reform—early Congresses required unanimous consent to end debate in the Senate. And one suspects that Fallows and Common Cause will have a little more love for the filibuster the next time Republicans take the Senate.

Leave a comment

Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.

The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.

Related Entries:



Rafael Mangual
Project Manager,
Legal Policy

Manhattan Institute


Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.