Filibuster Reform

Gerard Magliocca

Gerard N. Magliocca is the Samuel R. Rosen Professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Professor Magliocca is the author of three books and over twenty articles on constitutional law and intellectual property. He received his undergraduate degree from Stanford, his law degree from Yale, and joined the faculty after two years as an attorney at Covington and Burling and one year as a law clerk for Judge Guido Calabresi on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Professor Magliocca has received the Best New Professor Award and the Black Cane (Most Outstanding Professor) from the student body, and in 2008 held the Fulbright-Dow Distinguished Research Chair of the Roosevelt Study Center in Middelburg, The Netherlands. He was elected to the American Law Institute (ALI) in 2013.

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. A.W. says:

    I think the simplest reform is to say that if you are going to filibuster, you have to actually talk all that time.

  2. Jens says:

    What about tabling amendments? I think there was such a case in Canada (should be mentioned on Wikipedia or somewhere elese).

    Hmm, ok, now that I think of it: It does not apply to nominations, of course.

  3. Jake says:

    If one is opposed to filibusters in delay or defeat of executive nominations, is there any respectable basis for a Supreme Court nominee exception? Of course not. Does Article II, section 2 refer to “the Advice, Filibuster Threat, and Consent of the Senate”? Of course not. Can the Senate, exercising its power to regulate its own proceedings under Article I, section 5, amend the Constitution to insert the term “filibuster” in Article II, section 2? Of course not. See Article V.

    Heaven help us if another Constitutional Convention were called today. The end product would look like the Internal Revenue Code, politically inspired loopholes and all, and its legislative history would rule supreme.