|
Articles:
Politics
The
Tyranny of the Majority Presses Onward
Sunday, May 29, 2005
fil-i-bus-ter
(n.) : The use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged
speechmaking, for the purpose of delaying legislative action.
An
age-old tradition in the US Senate, the filibuster has long
served to give the minority party some semblance of power
when debating especially controversial matters. This tactic
involves a loophole in Senate proceedings, which allows a
person to speak for an unlimited amount of time during debate.
Because of this, opponents can speak for hours or days on
end, preventing a vote. When a vote goes down party lines,
the majority party always wins. When this seems inevitable,
the minority party has the filibuster as a last resort in
extreme cases.
Recently,
Democrats suggested they would use this tactic to prevent
a vote on a handful of controversial judicial nominees. Citing
what they viewed as extreme right-wing track records, many
Democrats vehemently opposed their confirmation. Judges, they
argued, are supposed to be fair and impartial. Extremism on
either end is not a desirable quality for them to have. A
large number of judicial nominees were confirmed relatively
easily. Only a few of them garnered such resistance from Senate
Democrats.
Nevertheless,
Republicans wanted all of their nominees confirmed, and threatened
to pass legislation (the "Nuclear Option") to terminate
the filibuster if Democrats proceeded to use it in this case.
Republicans seem to view the filibuster as a magic button
that allows the minority party to control the Senate. This
is simply not the case. Utilizing the filibuster is by no
means a walk in the park. It requires a handful of Senators
to stand for hours or days at a time, with no food, no bathroom,
and no sleep, speaking unceasingly in order to hold the floor.
Because of the arduous demands from the participants, it is
used sparingly in only the most crucial of circumstances.
This
showdown resulted in a compromise when Democrats agreed to
forgo the filibuster on the judicial nominees, and in exchange
Republicans agreed to leave the filibuster in place. For a
few days, people seemed to hail this uncommon bipartisanship.
But it couldn't last.
Next
the Senate moved forward in debating the confirmation of John
Bolton, nominee for UN Ambassador. Most Democrats seemed as
opposed to Bolton as to the aforementioned judicial nominees,
yet did not attempt to filibuster a vote in the strictest
sense of the word. Instead, they voted against closing debate
and voting on Bolton's confirmation. They did not stall a
vote for days by speaking endlessly, they simply voted their
conscience on the matter. Yet now some Republicans are referring
to such a vote as a "filibuster".
"John
Bolton, the very first issue we turned to, we got what looks
to me like a filibuster. It certainly sounds like a filibuster
... it quacks like a filibuster." --Senate Majority Leader
Bill Frist (R-TN)
Is
it safe to now assume that any time Democrats do something
to oppose Republicans, they're "filibustering"?
Call me crazy, but I thought that was just part of their job…to
represent their constituents, their values and ideals, and
vote their conscience even if it goes against the Republican
majority.
It's
almost as if Senate Republicans want the Democrats to sit
back and go along with everything they want. Is that their
idea of "bipartisanship"? They don't want bipartisan
compromise, they just want Democrats to agree with them. They
criticize the minority party, cry foul every time they disagree,
and attempt to publicly degrade and bully them into submission.
To me, this reeks of totalitarianism.
So
apparently, if we want Senate Democrats to be fine upstanding
senators, they are supposed to do the following:
1)
Nod and smile every time a Republican speaks
2) Ask the nearest Republican how they should vote and perform
accordingly
3) Help pass legislation abolishing the filibuster
4) Forget their ideals why their constituents elected them
5) Go along with everything the Republican majority wants
6) Willfully herd themselves on the trains to the concentration
camps along with the other "politically dissident"
48% of Americans once power is securely consolidated in the
hands of one party
Finally,
why would Senate Republicans push for an end to the filibuster
anyway? What do they think they're going to do once they're
in the minority? It seems to me like they don't plan on ever
being in the minority again. I find it ironic that Republicans,
who are allegedly opposed to big, authoritarian government,
allow the existing Republican majority to expand government
and pursue actions which consolidate power in the hands of
one party. Wake up and smell the fascism.
We
go by the major vote, and if the majority are insane the sane
must go to the hospital. --Horace Mann
In
framing a government which is to be administered by men over
men the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable
the government to control the governed, and in the next place,
oblige it to control itself. --Alexander Hamilton
The
essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must
be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. --James Madison
Concentrated
power has always been the enemy of liberty. --Ronald Reagan
|
