Democratic lawsuit against the neo-GOP Hastert Rule?

[shanen]

In case you need the background, the Hastert Rule became neo-GOP policy to obstruct Clinton. It says that will of the majority be damned, the only majority that the neo-GOP cares about is themselves.

Why doesn't the Democratic Party file a lawsuit against the Hastert Rule? Isn't that rule a violation of their oath of office? Surely the Democratic Party should have the legal standing?

P.S. I insist that today's neo-GOP party should not be confused with the GOP or original Republican Party. Brand corruption.

[PoliticAverse]

1. The Supreme Court takes the "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"

part of the Constitution pretty literally.

Note that the Speaker of the House has less power now than was the case around the turn of the century.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

[shanen]

2. The Supreme Court is NO part of any solution these days

This is NOT the rule of the proceedings of one of the houses of Congress. The Hastert Rule is an internal party rule that is extended to prevent the House of Representatives from fulfilling its Constitutional obligations.

It shouldn't be necessary to add this background, but your reply seems to call for it. The Founders intention was quite clear that the House of Representatives would be the part of the government that was most responsive to the will of the voters. They were supposed to be held to account as often as was feasible, which at that time was every two years.

The situation we have now is that the majority of the voters who picked candidates for the House of Representatives actually voted for members of the Democratic Party, but the gerrymandering concentrated and wasted a large fraction of those votes. The anti-representative outcome is that 55% of the House is controlled by the neo-GOP representing a MINORITY of the actual voters. Now we add in the Hastert Rule, and we have Representatives representing a small fraction of the voters able to prevent ANY legislative action. Even if 75% of the voters voted for Representatives who would pass a particular law, the others can prevent the law from ever receiving a vote. (Yes, that's actually a mathematical simplification. If you actually assume perfect gerrymandering and that the politicians can select their voters perfectly, then by combining that gerrymandering with the Hastert Rule you can actually get full Congressional control (in the House) by Representatives who received just over 12.5% of the votes.)

P.S. I strongly believe that the Founders would have made the Representatives even MORE accountable if it had been technically feasible at the time. Perhaps some kind of provision for a voter-driven vote of confidence?

P.P.S. I confess to a personal axe against gerrymandering. My district was recently repacked to defend a totally worthless tool.

[PoliticAverse]

3. I sympathize with you re gerrymandering (which has been found somewhat unconstitutional,

for a discussion see: http://www.propublica.org/article/is-partisan-gerrymandering-unconstitutional ).

As to the speaker, perhaps the Constitution should have required a 2/3rds vote for election so that
the Speaker would represent more of the population.

Note that Boehner has several times violated the Hassert rule and that both parties have followed
a similar rule to a certain degree, From: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2013/01/17-hastert-rule-binder ).