Thursday, April 14, 2005
Filibuster Flap
In the last few days I have become engaged in a heated debate with a fellow maroon about the validity of the so-called "filibuster" of Judicial nominees, during which I have concluded that the problem is, again, misinformation. (For information, Hugh Hewitt here and here are excellent). The frustrating fact, as Hewitt points out, is that this is not about the filibuster. The fact of the matter is that approval of Judicial nominees requires a simple majority, while the democratic filibuster is based on denying a motion to close debate, which requires a 3/5 majority. By requiring the 60 votes for a 51 vote issue, this is essentially circumventing the constitution, and creating a precedent for such abuse and neglect in the future.
And for all the talk about the right of the minority to a voice, everyone seems to be forgetting that the way one voices one's opinion in a democracy is through voting, not via inaction and deception. How far does the line of thinking go for the right for minority dissent become the right for the minority to make the decision de facto for the majority? If opponents of the judges have ideological qualms, let them voice those reservations in the form of a thumbs down vote. That is why they are reviewing judicial nominees, to vote on them. As simple as that. The makeup of the senate reflects the will of the people, and it seems that the democrats wish to usurp the popular sentiment. This process will essentially destroy the idea of any sort of proportional representation, as it will over represent a minority opinion by forcing a vote beyond constitutional mandate. Has anyone thought about the rights of the majority?
And for all the talk about the right of the minority to a voice, everyone seems to be forgetting that the way one voices one's opinion in a democracy is through voting, not via inaction and deception. How far does the line of thinking go for the right for minority dissent become the right for the minority to make the decision de facto for the majority? If opponents of the judges have ideological qualms, let them voice those reservations in the form of a thumbs down vote. That is why they are reviewing judicial nominees, to vote on them. As simple as that. The makeup of the senate reflects the will of the people, and it seems that the democrats wish to usurp the popular sentiment. This process will essentially destroy the idea of any sort of proportional representation, as it will over represent a minority opinion by forcing a vote beyond constitutional mandate. Has anyone thought about the rights of the majority?
Comments:
unfortunately, inaction and deception has become standard strategy of the left wing of the democratic party. Does the Democratic party even have a left wing anymore? I'd say it is just one big liberal fuselage now with no wings leaning one way or the other.
I believe that the democrats don't want to go on record as actually voting against someone like Gonzales. Then it would be on their record as voting against a minority. The democratic party, the supossed last bastion of equal rights for the down-trodden ethnic minorities.
The question is; if the dems are breaking congressional rules, what can be done to enforce those rules? Do we go on without them? Stick judges in position regardless? Who enforces the rules?
Post a Comment
I believe that the democrats don't want to go on record as actually voting against someone like Gonzales. Then it would be on their record as voting against a minority. The democratic party, the supossed last bastion of equal rights for the down-trodden ethnic minorities.
The question is; if the dems are breaking congressional rules, what can be done to enforce those rules? Do we go on without them? Stick judges in position regardless? Who enforces the rules?
