Monday, May 23, 2005

What would John Wayne do?

I'm getting pretty tired of all the talk about the "Nuclear Option." The real ultimate weapon is the filibuster itself, not doing away with it. All this drivel about the filibuster being part of the Constitution and a sacred institution is offensive demagoguery. And the phrase "minority rights" is being massively misapplied. The rule in a democracy is that the majority rules unless it is trying to deprive people of rights for some impermissable, invidious reason, such as their race. But minority parties don't have a right to get their own way.

The compromise isn't all that clear. The AP reports:
[T]he agreement would clear the way for yes-or-no votes on some of Bush's nominees, but make no guarantee.

Under the agreement, Democrats would pledge not to filibuster any of Bush's future appeals court or Supreme Court nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances."

For their part, Republicans agreed not to support an attempt to strip Democrats of their right to block votes.
What the (bleep) does THAT mean? By the right to block votes, do they mean "filibuster"? If so, Republicans have been betrayed by some of their own senators. The only reason I can think of to protect the filibuster is that you're planning on being in the minority yourself again pretty soon. The Republican senators who have sided with the Democrats have guaranteed their own defeat in the future, so their fears have become self-fulfilling.

Apparently the Republicans have conceded two judges, Myers and Saad. Myers is offensive to environmentalists because he has publicly expressed contempt for the movement. Saad is being targeted because Michigan senators want payback for Republicans blocking a judge they wanted when Clinton was president.

It may be that these two wouldn't get approved anyway, but not for any reasons I can see except waffling by Republicans and Democrats who previously supported them.

Filibusters are anti-democratic. Their history as a tool to block civil rights legislation should make them odious to every American. The only good case for one was the one in Mr. Smith, and that was only to stop something that was dishonest and abusive. These are being used to prevent the winners of the last election from doing what they were elected to do. They evince a cynicism about the roles of representative offfices that I find repellent.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home