Here’s a question worth mulling over. Suppose that Senate Democrats decide to jam the health care bill through using the reconciliation process, under which only 50 votes (plus Joe Biden) are required. They do this through a set of favorable rulings by the presiding officer (Joe Biden) saying that everything in the health care bill is related to the budget process. Would that raise a justiciable question? In other words, would that be more properly viewed as an interpretation of the Budget Act of 1974, which created reconciliation, or an interpretation of the Senate’s precedents dealing with cloture? If the former is correct, then one would think that the Senate’s statutory interpretation could be challenged in court. If the latter is true, then the issue would deal with the Senate’s rules, which would make judicial intervention highly problematic. Moreover, would anyone have standing to challenge these actions in either case? If so, whom?