/* ------------------- begin IP Block script ------------------- Block IP address script Points to php script on blog.racetotheright.com IP addresses are within the script ---------- */ /* -------------------- end IP Block script ------------------- */

Saturday, April 02, 2005

Filibuster, Democrats and Hypocrisy

--posted by Tony Garcia on 4/02/2005

This is an old column but it is yet another shining example of how the words Democrat and Hypocrite are becoming synonymous.

Regarding the filibuster of the Senate there are a few lies. The "nuclear option" being considered would not end the voice of the minority. It would put an end to the ability of the minority to rule in a body that is majority rule.

The longer filibusters have been used at the peril of the country. In the early 1960's it was used by the Democrats to block the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For the past 5 years the Democrats have been blocking judicial nominees at the peril of the court system.

According to the partisan American Progress Action Fund's Judd Legum and Christy Harvey the answer to the current roadblock is for Bush to "[s]top nominating extremist judges to the federal bench." This is hardly the correct approach.

Let us assume for a moment that the nominees being obstructed are 'extremist'. It is the perogative of the President to appoint whomever he feels has the credentials and judicial philosophy. If, according to the left, Bush is an extremist then he should be entitled to appoint extremist judges...especially since his 'extreme' views won with the first majority of popular votes in decades.

With regard to the validity of the 'nuclear option' in the Senate rules I say that it is a good thing. The rule of 60 votes to end debate was put forward from a group of Senators that no longer exists. There is a new membership and that membership should be entitle to have a say on what rules govern the Senate.

To quote a current Senator:
"By what logic can the Senate of 1917 or 1949 or 1959 bind the Senate of [today]... The immediate issue is whether a simple majority of the Senate is entitled to change Senate rules… [I]t is clear that this question should be settled by a majority vote."--Sen. Edward Kennedy, 1975
Or maybe I should quote another sage on the matter. Though this person is the one who is against changing Senate rule changes now that he is out of the majority:
"[T]he members of the Senate who met in 1789 and approved the first body of rules did not for one moment think, or believe, or pretend, that all succeeding Senates would be bound by that Senate."Sen. Robert "KKK" Byrd, 1979.
Dear US Senate, Change the rules (by simple majority is the most democratic method) as you see fit for your jurisdiction. Change them and live with them. For the party in the majority will someday be in the minority and the minority will someday be in the majority. Be wise about the rule changes. By ending the filibuster you may remove the minority's ability to rule the Senate but you also will make the majority more quickly susceptible to accountability for bad law. That is because the majority will have its will enacted and they will have to answer for all that comes out of their body. I deem that a good thing and thus support the removal of the filibuster.

In today's day and age, with the given technology that keeps constant eyes on the Senate I see that there is really no way possible for any minority voice in the Senate to be unheard. Thus there is no chance that "minority rights" within the Senate chance being trampled, beyond the rhetorical cries from a crybaby who does not get enough of the limelight. The filibuster is more often abused than useful and the second judicial filibuster in this country is no different.

Judicial filibusters should not be based on ideology, political position or any litmus test. It should be used only to block an unqualified nominee. Contrary to what the far left believes, disagreement does not constitute being unqualified.

End the unneeded filibuster.


Post a Comment

<< Home