Will and can the rules change in the senate be appealed in federal court.

[CK_John]

I'm under the impression rule changes could only be done at the opening of a new Congress.

[rug]

1. No.

[CK_John]

2. Why not?.

[rug]

7. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

[Jester Messiah]

3. Nope. How the Senate conducts its business, IS its business.

Also, Senate rules aren't laws, so courts have no jurisdiction.

[CK_John]

8. So a blantant rule infraction has no checks and balance alternative. I think

a minority member could appeal to the court, but it would be up to the court to throw it out or take up the question before the court.

[Laelth]

4. Complicated answer.

You can challenge anything in Court. The question is, will you win?

The filibuster is not in the Constitution. The Constitution is a limiting document. The government can pass any law it likes, so long as that law is not contrary to the Constitution. The filibuster, because it is not forbidden by the Constitution, is perfectly legal.

Really, it's just a Senate rule. As such, the Senate can change it or eliminate it as it sees fit and at any time. It would be highly unusual for any Court to rule in favor of a challenge to a Senate rule. The Senate has the absolute right to conduct its business as it sees fit. I don't see any Court changing that.

Hope that helps.

-Laelth

[CK_John]

11. But the senate rules state them can only be changed when they are adopted at every new Congress.

[Laelth]

14. And the Senate has the right to alter that rule as well.

As it sees fit, and when it sees fit.

I know the rule you're talking about, but if the Senate ignores that rule, as it appears to have done, I don't see any Court issuing an order compelling the Senate to follow its own rules. Highly, highly unlikely, imo.



-Laelth

[CK_John]

16. Most likely except for a very conservative Justice.

[bluestate10]

5. No. Senate rules aren't subject to judicial review. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

6. no.

Which is to say, anyone can attempt to appeal to the courts, but no court is going to take this case.

[CK_John]

10. But there has to be a right to appeal.

[JCMach1]

17. No, the judge would throw out the case on constitutional grounds...

no case= no appeal

[msanthrope]

9. They can try. It would be a failure, however. To clarify....

I imagine that Mitch could file whatever he liked in the DC circuit...that does not mean a court would find jurisdiction.

[CK_John]

12. I'm sure he will if he can.

[msanthrope]

13. Orly Taitz or Larry Klayman could do it. nt

[CK_John]

15. I think you would have to be in the senate to have standing.

[msanthrope]

18. Like 'standing' would stop those two? Maybe they can find a teabagging Congressperson. nt