this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2025
317 points (95.9% liked)
Progressive Politics
3373 readers
1171 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're not getting it. I didn't say we should ignore the courts.
When you try to sue, the courts will take one look at Article I and rule that the Senate is responsible for its own rules.
The cases you are talking about did not arise from senate rulemaking procedures. They do not set the precedent you suggest.
The courts can decide the Senate is responsible for its own rules but it can also decide that a simple majority didn't have the power to enact multibillion dollar legislation by the strict wording of its own rules.
That said, if we can get another majority in then I highly recommend they try it. I'd even be willing to call my representative and ask them.
You are not understanding what the Senate is doing here. The "Nuclear Option" is the Senate rewriting its rules. They absolutely have that power. It's specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The court does not have the constitutional authority to demand the Senate follow a previous version of its rules. The court must accept the new rules the Senate writes for itself, because the Constitution gives them the power to establish such rules.
FYI that is the norm for them
The Nuclear Option has never been used to rewrite its rules but to change how the rules have been interpreted, such as in 2013 and 2017 where the ability to filibuster was not extended to SCOTUS nominations and presidential cabinet picks. To rewrite the senate rules requires 67 senators, I was mistaken earlier when I said 60, as outlined in the 1975 fillibuster reform OR it could even take 100 votes as outlined in the Senate rules Article 5
A distinction without a relevant difference: The court would be required to follow the later interpretation, not the earlier one.
The courts only have a say in laws they pass not internal rules of either chamber...
We're talking about the laws passed as a result of change of interpretation of the rules such that the rule is not followed at all per its intention in the previous 1975 legislation which introduced it.
No we're talking about senate rules and how it's completely up to the senate to decide and implement them.
The filibuster is completely a tool of the senate and only because they made it one of their rules. Which they even been when they want to make it easier on themselves to use as a simple threat not having to actually stand and talk.