You Don't Need Discussion When You're Always Right
Yet again the Republican Party is pushing the message that dissent is un-American and that good little patriots should simply toe whatever line George W. Bush decides to set. Many Republicans have been talking about using the so-called “nuclear option,” a rule change which could be accomplished by Cheney, as President of the Senate, challenging the filibuster rule by way of a “point of order.” In this case, a simple majority vote could eliminate the filibuster and turn the Senate into a rubber stamp for Bush’s nominees. What has provoked the discussion of this “nuclear option”? The Democrats have dared to filibuster such nominees as William Myers III, a man who spent most of his career lobbying for the cattle and mining industries, or Terrence Boyle who has several times made decisions which circumvented federal laws banning discrimination by gender, disability, and race. Democrats are not challenging every nominee; they aren’t even challenging most of them. Last term, 204 nominees were accepted by the Democrats. They plan on filibustering about 20 right now, all of which were rejected last term. That doesn’t matter to the Republicans, however. The “moral majority” has decided that it has a mandate, and nobody is going to prevent them from enacting their agenda. They don’t care if they have to trample on minority rights, or abolish open discussion, as long as they get their way. “Their way” isn’t even beneficial for the American people. “Their way” means catering to corporate interests by approving judges who claim that all habitat conservation laws are unconstitutional because they interfere with potential profit.
The filibuster has not always been used productively. If the Republicans do not destroy it, it will continue to be used unproductively at times. There will always be individuals like Strom Thurmond, who for 24 hours delayed a vote on the Civil Rights Act. However, when you have a President whose party narrowly controls the Senate nominating bad judges and planning to broadly increase the government’s power, the filibuster is an absolute necessity. Both sides need and deserve a chance to voice their opinions. It is only through open discussion that the best solutions can be reached. The Republicans, especially the one in charge, need to realize that they are just as prone to error as anybody else. As mere mortals they should not be awarding themselves the power to unilaterally decide this countries fate.
With the filibuster gone and loyal Republicans goose-stepping behind the President, the Legislative branch will become nothing more than a rubber stamp for whatever nominee or law Bush throws at it; the Republicans are creating the conditions for an American dictatorship. Of course, that could be exactly what they have in mind.
The filibuster has not always been used productively. If the Republicans do not destroy it, it will continue to be used unproductively at times. There will always be individuals like Strom Thurmond, who for 24 hours delayed a vote on the Civil Rights Act. However, when you have a President whose party narrowly controls the Senate nominating bad judges and planning to broadly increase the government’s power, the filibuster is an absolute necessity. Both sides need and deserve a chance to voice their opinions. It is only through open discussion that the best solutions can be reached. The Republicans, especially the one in charge, need to realize that they are just as prone to error as anybody else. As mere mortals they should not be awarding themselves the power to unilaterally decide this countries fate.
With the filibuster gone and loyal Republicans goose-stepping behind the President, the Legislative branch will become nothing more than a rubber stamp for whatever nominee or law Bush throws at it; the Republicans are creating the conditions for an American dictatorship. Of course, that could be exactly what they have in mind.
5 Comments:
If the Republicans pull that Nuclear Option stunt, I think it'll backfire on them. There has to be some legal or parliamentary procedure the Democrats could come up with (prerequisite: a spine).
Democrats on the Ethics Committee have already staged some sort of "strike" by refusing to vote on anything else until Hastert revokes some of the 9th inning rule changes he's made to protect DeLay.
Hopefully this will be just the beginning of a pulse being found among the Democrats.
Besides not having a spine, the Democrats also lack a majority. For most procedures to suceed you need at least a simple majority, if not a two-thirds majority. Pretty much the only tool the minority can wield against the majority is the filibuster.
Just a reminder that when Senator Thurmon used the filibuster he was a Democrat and don't forget Sen. Byrd who also filibustered against the civil rights act, which was past by Republicans.
No. Eliminating the filibuster, a tactic that has never been used by either side to block judicial nominees, would turn the Legislature into what it is constituted to be...a place where issues are debated by both sides and then decisions are made, in the case of judicial nominees, by a simple majority. One of the prices that the minority pays for being the party with the lesser popular support is that they must actually convince members of the majority party to join them in opposing, in this case, a judicial nominee. Sorry guys, but filibuster is not a debate. It is designed to convince no one of anything. It will win bipartisan support from no Republican. It is designed to do one thing...prevent the Congress from doing what the Constitution (you do remember that document, don't you) established the Congress to do...in this case, either approve or disaprove judicial nominees by a simple majority vote. There is neither Constitutional permission nor historical precedent for filibuster to defeat judicial nominees.
well. uh. conor knows what an apricot is. and kat doesn't.
Post a Comment
<< Home