Tuesday, May 24, 2005

short thoughts on filibuster




  • republicans used the filibuster more than anyone else.
  • but now they want to get rid of it.
  • however, what'd happen in the future, should a democrat be president?
  • republicans would no longer be able to filibuster.
  • that they no longer see it as necessary means they no longer see a possible future in which they are not in power.
  • this is either monstrously arrogant, monstrously short-sighted, or some combination of the two.
  • i personally would never dismantle such a tool for short-term gains at the expense of long-term safety. especially since the logical result of this
  • would be a country forced to wobble back and forth along political lines until the country collapses
  • instead of following a middle line, which the filibuster is supposed to ensure
  • by encouraging people to nominate those judges who would decide issues most fairly.


and another thing? this whole "ooh, activist judges forcing other people to accept special interest groups?" you mean like activist judges abolished slavery and gave black people the right to vote? that kind of activism? you mean defending the freedom of the individual and reducing the power of 'big government' to control the lives of individuals? of course, they have to be individuals approved of by republicans... not just any individual who walks his own self in off'n the street.

1 comment:

breenie said...

i think in the 70's the democrats tried to alter the filibuster rules.

it's less about politics and more about morals.. the right to live or die (terri), the right to choose to have an abortion (current case in new hampshire for a minor to have abortion 48 hours after notifying parents), and the right to marry (same sex).

kaybee