Leo Katz is Guest-Blogging on Volokh

I may want to read his book. Snip:

But perhaps you in fact think the parliamentarian ought to feel bad about using a killer amendment? Once you think about the matter a bit more, it is hard to see that what the parliamentarian did as the least bit objectionable. To be sure, he did derail a bill that had majority support. But did the bill he derailed in fact deserve to pass? To be sure, a majority supports it as against the status quo. But there is another bill, the amended bill, that yet another majority would prefer, and then there is another majority that would prefer the status quo over that one. Given that, what makes the proposed bill anymore expressive of the legislature’s “true” wishes than these other alternatives?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.