Right. But I’m pointing out that if if we conclude the Court doesn’t have the power, how do we reconcile that conclusion with the broad expanse of power that some would urge we adopt in other areas?
In other words: what is the principled distinction that compels the conclusion that the Court does NOT have a role here? I agree the Court has no role here; I’m asking for the rationale, so that we may apply that rationale elsewhere.
Link? Sounds like awfully stilted language for the 21st century; are you actually quoting a poster?
A. If that is what you meant, why couldn’t you make yourself say it instead of couching it as yet another tediously-transparent gotcha attempt?
B. See askeptic’s posts actually quoting the Constitution. The Supreme Court could find that right because of the clause saying that the Senate and House can make their own rules. Duh. Now one what basis could you say they couldn’t?
But you know that too. Now, how about telling us why you won’t call the Nuclear Option that?
NB: Chambliss and Graham are hotheaded backbenchers, not “people in positions of authority” other than with their own votes. The “leadership” is doing no such thing.
Bricker You know better than most people on this board what the Courts rational has been. It is certainly a suitable topic for debate. What I take issue with is your framing of the question. You know the answers to both questions. Just come on out and say what you mean. You think the 'libruls" are big bad poo poo heads. Thats fine you want to talk about that.
Heh, I thought the language was too flowery for an internet post, too. But then I saw who you were quoting and it was a :smack: moment. Had to be 'lucy.
T’ain’t the libruhls… it’s the Evolving Breathing Live-Action Poseable Constitutionalists that I’m questioning.
Are you suggesting I should have started the debate, “Given that the Supreme Court has no authority to intervene in the Senate’s rules change, why does it have the ability to intervene elsewhere in excess of the letter of the Constitution?”
Mebbe so. I’d be happy to offer that as rthe new topic, assuming everyone agrees with the predicate assumption.
Bricker, if your question is simply one of procedure how about this…
Could the senate make a rule preventing any motions by senators of middle eastern origin.
Considering the constitutional language i quoted above that seems to be a thornier legal question.
THAT is a good question for illustrative purposes.
I say they could, yes.
But of course, 'cause all us non-originalists will ignore the Constitution any chance we get and have no problem establishing a government by judicial fiat!
Here’s my question: Why do all those strict constructionists want to steal our children and rape our dogs?
The Bill of Right came after the constitution and abrogated anything in the constitution that conflicts with it. (like the 3/5 compromise) so I think if the senate tried to apply the rule in a way that is prohibited by the Bill of Rights then the court could and should address the issue. This ofcourse leads to the sticky issue so deftly sidestepped in Marbury. Specifically how can the courts ruling be enforced if the executive chooses not to enforce it.
Good question. :smack:
Hamlet, I didn’t know you wanted to rape my dog.
That puppy was asking for it, that’s why!
(A) What part of the Bill of Rights is offended by the exclusion of middle-eastern-born senators?
(B) Why does {whatever your answer to (A) is} not protect the right of the minority party senator to filibuster?
Come on Brick, you are kidding. Right?
a) XV Amendment
b)they are not a protected class so no strict scrutiny.
Ah.
I’m used to the first ten amendments being called the Bill of Rights. Sorry.
But now seeing that you mean, “the whole Constitution,” your argument suggests that the Supreme Court COULD review the change under the rational basis test? In other words, the issue is justiciable, and they have jurisdiction, and it’s an equal protection case that doesn’t involve a protected class… yes?
See I knew you were better at this than me. 
Rut roh, shaggy!
Wow that quote is quite a bit out of context. In the midst of a discussion about the constitutionality of discrimantory laws without logical basis that quote doesn’t seem out of place. That opinion has basis in cases City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center and Romer v. Evans. Thats quite a different situation than the judiciary imposing rules on the legislature with absolutely no basis in law or logic.
Graham is a hotheaded backbencher? Then how do you explain this?
Let’s recap the action thusfar: you’ve accused another poster of creating a strawman, only to find that two Senators have advanced the very proposition proposed for debate in the OP. Then, you call one of the two Senators a “hothead,” and now it’s shown that said “hothead” is actually at the center of efforts to work out a bipartisan compromise to preserve comity in the Senate.
I’ve made poor arguments in my posts before, but I’d be very embarrassed if TWO of my arguments were so blatantly contradicted by facts within such a short timeframe.