|
so:text
|
I think the 60-vote rule allows people to avoid voting on controversial issues by hiding behind a rule, now, I understand the argument of the parties that the party in the majority may change and things happen, but the thing about it is it is still a violation of the Constitution. We often talk in judicial circles about judicial fiats, in other words an amendment to the Constitution by judicial fiat which means them passing laws that have no relation to the Constitution. Well there’s also legislative fiat, and that’s what we see with regard to the 60-vote rule. (en) |
