zlacker

Wouldn't that super-majority for the court be a risk, as a minority could easily block its workings (not influence, just block)?

>>soco+(OP)
> Wouldn't that super-majority for the court be a risk, as a minority could easily block its workings (not influence, just block)?

I don't think so. The idea is to force compromise by putting the threshold so far out of reach to eliminate fantasies that after the next election one party or other will be in the position not to have to compromise. That's the issue now.

The idea that a minority would try to literally destroy another branch of government for some reason seems so remote and so extreme that I'm not sure if it's worth considering. What would the political calculus be for trying to block the workings of the court system?

>>ardy42+qy
> I don't think so.

Actually, that is specifically the reason some supermajority rules were lifted [1]. Do you recall Merrick Garland?

The filibuster is abused similarly [2].

[1]: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/04/senate-obst...

[2]: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2013/11/21/char...