ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Prawfs

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal Commentary

: Prawfs

Fix the Senate

By Dan Markel, Ethan Leib, Rick Garnett, Matt Bodie, Paul Horwitz , Steve Vladeck, and Orly Lobel

ADVERTISEMENTS

This comment by Steven Hill in the Financial Times aptly sums up my feelings about the U.S. Senate: "This powerful legislative body debating healthcare for the entire country is a patrician gerontocracy more closely resembling the ancient Roman Senate than a New England town meeting." Right on, my brother. The Senate, with its anti-majoritarian structure, its obstruction-enabling procedure and its general cluelessness, is a lot like David Hasselhoff: a queasy-making combination of self-love and ridiculousness.

This view is not new, particularly among law professors. So why isn't this sentiment more widely held? Some people hate individual politicians, and some hate the government as a whole, but few beyond the academy point to the Senate itself?as opposed to the House?as a dysfunctional institution. More specifically, most people are not interested in the Senate's design or procedure. From the public's point of view, this makes sense--who has the time to look under the hood when the government keeps crashing? Easier to get a new driver. But for academics interested in reform?and, indeed, for anyone interested in political change?the general public indifference to the Senate's institutional failings is a real problem.

So what can we do about it? I?like other (how many other, I wonder?) con law prawfs?teach and advocate the critical view. But I'm not sure how far it penetrates, even among my students. The mainstream media, although it sometimes points out the hypocrisy of individual senators over the filibuster, doesn't seem interested in criticizing Senate procedure. And there are powerful incentives for individual senators to maintain the status quo. Things therefore seem hopeless, at least in the short run. And maybe in the long run too. But hopelessness is not a happy feeling, so I try to fight it.

How about you? Do you think the Senate, as currently designed and operated, is defensible? If not, is there hope it can be changed? Please say yes, or I may give up hope and dedicate my life to touring with David Hasselhoff.

 

Full post as published by Prawfs on December 12, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0022 secs (from cache 11/06/26 11:46:44)