April 26, 2005
Solum Responds to My "Hate the Filibuster?" Piece
Responding to my oped from yesterday, Larry Solum weighs in here. I agree with Larry that when a filibuster continues to the end of a term it imposes a de facto supermajority requirement. I just don't see the constitutional problem: why is this not just an instance of the Senate withholding consent? As a matter of "ideal theory," why not let the political process in the Senate---itself a non-majoritarian institution--determine who gets an up or down vote?