« FOIA suit sheds light on Navy investigation | Main | Larry Klayman loses mega-suit against Facebook »

December 21, 2012

Judge dismisses anti-filibuster lawsuit

A long-shot lawsuit challenging the #Senate #filibuster rules has been tossed out by a federal judge.

In a 47-page ruling Friday, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan acknowledged that the "filibuster rule is an important and controversial issue...as in recent years, even the mere threat of a filibuster is powerful enough to completely forestall legislative action."

Nonetheless, as could have been predicted, Sullivan added that "this court finds itself powerless to address this issue for two independent reasons."

Specifically, Sullivan concluded the plaintiffs lacked the standing to sue, and he cited as well his assessment that "to intrude into this area would offend the separation of powers on which the Constitution rests." The judge reasoned:

"Reaching the merits of this case would require an invasion into internal Senate processes at the heart of the Senate’s constitutional prerogatives as a House of Congress, and would thus express a lack of respect for the Senate as a coordinate branch of government."

Common Cause filed the lawsuit on behalf of itself, several members of the House of Representatives and three indivudals who said they would have benefited from the so-called DREAM Act had it not been blocked by the filibuster. Erika Andiola, Celso Mireles, and Caesar Vargas, who were born in Mexico and now live in the United States, said the stalled legislation could have helped them attain legal U.S. status.

The lawsuit claimed that the filibuster, which among other things requires a vote of 60 senators to proceed with or close debate on bills, is unconstitutional because it is “inconsistent with the principle of majority rule."

In part, Sullivan observed that the plaintiffs "failed to demonstrate" that the DREAM Act immigration bill, as well as a campaign finance reform bill, would have passed if it weren't for the filibuster.




TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Judge dismisses anti-filibuster lawsuit:


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


The Constitution is valid until it is invalid. By definition a constitution cannot be self-eliminating, so a fundamental challenge by the Supreme Court would only refer back to the amendment process. Since as stated in the Constitution the Senate makes its own rules, then it must have been designed by a class of men called 'honorable'. We can then come to know, once again, that having a long lived series of honorable men is not as reliable as it might have once seemed. A recent retired Justice said that the Constitution would mean little if it were not based on 'trust'. So should seem to some contemporary to this age that 'trust' has been lost by some combination circumstances, that also should be clearly identified so that they can be addressed squarely. Why the public should be concerned that the elements of the Constitution can be turned one against the next to create uncertainty, and then to take advantage of the created uncertainty to obtain a gain of some type. The forces of evil would be certain to undermine that 'trust' and have worked diligently to ruin a nation of … we 'trust'.

Even the earliest versions of the Constitution have had a storied history of needing hastily created amendments, the tenth amendment in particular has in modern interpretations been taken to mean that individual States Executive Power can be enhanced while the history of technical progress has so interconnected the commerce and economy that it is obvious that it would be more efficient and less of drag on the economy to implement federal regulation. It is true the interconnected commerce, transportation, travel and communications have enabled the private sector to build corporations spread nationwide and globally. This commercial success once applied to wring maximum profits then, bring upon itself the expectation of the same or similar profit from some future investment scheme. It is clear enough that the first attempt at national integration of business would come at the cost of requests for federal level legal enablements. Those same federal enablements would become an impediment when the nationalized facilities where located across the country, and all the states were to consider state regulations. Thus to continue to profit those same corporations would cease needing federal help, and resort to laws from fifty state houses, to further the profit line of some interminable scheme. The states could reduce regulations, lower wages, eliminate benefit and work assiduously against the lowly wage workers ability to bargain for better conditions. So what does this bring, except so called State competition to keep profits high? As will be the case, as soon an all the locations of all the business will have reduced wages, and profits at maximum. But after all that can be wrung out the federal and states, then it is only the local regulations that become the next obstacle. Below that would regulations conditions and a product that is failing, and then, as if you didn't know the business with inflated books is sold to your grandfather pension fund. Those pension funds would become the subject of failure and again become a ward of the federal government. Who then is the proper recipient of the blame for this hellish predicament?

Of course I wish I didn't have to remind all that the technological miracles when applied against the simpleminded concept of honorable men have consequences. Those technical innovations have enabled so called business interest to form lobbying groups, who attack federal, state and local regulations. When the rules of the Senate that have been subverted to the purpose of a huge encircling scheme to make profit without honest business risk, invest and developed interests then it is time to consider the Constitution invalid, waiting not one minute longer, for the branches of government to conclude that it is unconstitutional to represent the people within the nation. Many a legal scholar has pointed out that the Constitution only grants protection to individuals and through many legal cases does not grant those rights to groups, unions, political parties, or moneyed revolutionaries. Apparently the right to assembly means only to stand peaceably until you drop dead. Yet the Courts constantly find ways to support assembled groups as such as corporations, purchased charity groups, lobbyist and so called civic groups to be oddly dedicated to only themselves, and the neglect the very individual mentioned so often as the sole beneficiary of the Constructions protections.

The wolves in the forest are not groups of citizens seeking protection from the Constitution that they own, but are the very threat that is seeking group protection from a system that was not designed that in that way at all. The modern corruption that the Constitution has become would have supported King George III, over the patriots, patriots so naïve in law that the infamous words "We the People …" are not parts of that Constitution. The rules of the Senate have become the extra Constitutional exception that could be jiggered to eliminate a Constitution that could otherwise not eliminate itself.]

If a new revolution needs to started then lite the fire here: Resolved there shall be no group that is formed or funded any corporations, wealthy individual or purposed civic organization that cannot be recognized to represent individual petitioners citizens that can lobby Congress persons. Any Congress person to accept support from any group will be removed from Congress and cannot be replaced until the next biannual or hex annual election, those citizens who elected that Congress person will be without representation, until that election. A second offense punished by permanent imprisonment and the loss of all assets, current of in the future.


This is the only country in the world where you can be an illegal and sue because you are an illegal.


"to intrude into this area would offend the separation of powers on which the Constitution rests."

Yet the Supreme Court - with the most vulgar intentions - made that offense and usurped that authority when they usurped the authority of God Himself and breathed life into a piece of paper - an article of incorporation - and made a son of Adam out of the corporation, giving corporations "rights" and making them "super-citizens" able to levy the private taxes known as "profits" upon all other Americans that they can touch without either their knowledge or their consent yet simultaneously making those corporate "people" the unwilling and permanent slaves of a dictatorship by committee - a committe composed of that interlocked few who are both America's CEOs and the denizens of America's boardrooms in an utter refutation of democracy!

Yet had the gall to claim that they acted in the name of democracy!

America's judges, by and large, are an honorable lot - but those few who are corrupt have made a cesspool of our entire system of justice for they sit at its apex - and you know what runs downhill without my having to tell you.

That latter saying is nowhere more appropriate - by definition - than in the American system of law and justice.

The comments to this entry are closed.



"Suits & Sentences" is a legal affairs blog written by Michael Doyle, a reporter for McClatchy's Washington Bureau. He was a Knight Journalism Fellow at Yale Law School, where he earned a Master of Studies in Law; he also earned a Masters in Government from The Johns Hopkins University with a thesis on the Freedom of Information Act. He teaches journalism as an adjunct instructor at The George Washington University's School of Media and Public Affairs.

Send a suggestion or news tip. Read Mike's stories at news.mcclatchydc.com.

Follow Mike on Twitter: @MichaelDoyle10

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4 5 6
    7 8 9 10 11 12 13
    14 15 16 17 18 19 20
    21 22 23 24 25 26 27
    28 29 30 31