E-Cards, Rhymes or Nasty Grams!

But why have a filibuster at all? True progressive ideals should favor democratic methods. A filibuster allows a minority to hold the majority hostage. Although it is rarely used - a minority can use a filibuster at any time to hold up proceedings in the Senate.

I thought that democracy was based on voting and letting the majority decide. So why would a vote be so wrong?

If the times do change - so will the people in office. Politicians don't look down the road 20 years because they won't be in office then. They have to do what will get them the votes now. If it were possible to gain votes by long-term thinking then we would have better Senators through a Darwinian process.

Congress is shortsighted because that is what the American people generaly are. We want our reward now instead of in the distant future.

That's a very simplistic view. If our democracy was founded solely on majority rule, this would be a very different country indeed. The fact is, the founders have placed all kinds of safeguards in the constitution to keep a simple majority from entirely dominating. Certain decisions must be made with a supermajority to make sure that the overwhelming number of voices are heard and not just 51% or more.

When it comes to the foundation of the government, this is the case. These judicial appointments aren't just simple judgeships. They are far more then that. They represent an entire third of the foundation of the government when thought about in terms of the seperation of powers into executive, legislative and judicial branches. To allow the legislature to appoint judges with only a simple majority gives far too much power to the legislature over the judicial branch.

The founders understood this and that is why they have placed such safegaurds in the constitution including both the requirements for a supermajority AND unlimited debate (the filibuster).

By changing the senate rules, the evil Darth Frist would be violating one of the most basic core tenets upon which our democracy is founded: that of allowing everyone to have a voice. He would be removing the ability of the minority to be heard on one of the three most important things this goverment does: electing a president, electing congress members and appointing federal judges. It's wrong. It's the judicial equivalent of changing the process by which we elect the president or members of congress.

Frankly it really saddens me there is so much support for this among people on the right. They are so interested in advancing their views, they are willing to change basic democratic principles and safeguards that were placed in the constitution hundreds of years ago by people like Franklin, Hamilton and Washington, to name a few.

These people will stop at nothing to achieve their goals, including the subversion of the democracy. It's very scary. Just thank goodness, Jayhawk, that you agree with these people. If you held different views, you'd be scared shitless right now.

Some people think a filibuster blocks the right for a persons vote.

In simplest terms, a small group cannot win the vote so they prevent the vote. Isnt voting what democracy is about? Not just voting when you win, but also when you lose.

The people of the USA elected the officials to vote on their behalf in these situations. Now that represntation isnt happening because of a filibuster.

One can play both sides of the pollyanna coin.

That being said, what our country was founded on and what it is today are as different as black and white.

We can always cite the purity of what something should be, knowing full well that isnt reality.

Is this justice so bad? or is it merely because Bush has chosen her?

How much of the filibuster is politics rather then those pure sentiments you refer too with Franklin, Hamilton and Washington? Not so much I think.

You talk of the right view, your left view is just as diametric as the right, and using such names as if the left is good and the right is evil is obtuse.

I would think, based on what I read, that those names would be considered conservatives today.

The founders created a tradition of unlimited debate. Removing them is like removing an important check/balance from our government. That's why Senator Frist calls this a constitutional issue. It means changing a fundamental building block of our democracy. The founders mentioned above would certainly not approve. If they wanted one party to be able to dictate the entire agenda, laws, judges, etc. to the minority, they would not have gone to such great lengths to ensure that there were checks and balances in the first place.

If you believe in the concept of checks and balances, then this would have been a very bad move.

If Filibustering is so important why was it removed from the House of Representatives?

Filibusters are not mentioned in the constitution. It is a technical parlimentary rules.

Checks and Balances - when applied to the government - applies to the different branches of the government - judicial, executive, legislative. Checks and balances do not apply to political parties.

Parties are not equal. They have power proportional to their numbers - created by popular elections.

There is currently one independent senator. Should this senator, Shane Ross, be as powerful by himself as Republicans or Democrats? If Democrats have 90 senate seats does that mean Republicans can hold endless debate and keep a budget from being passed?

If a school board is voting on a new contract - should the one member who disagrees refuse to vote and thereby keep the school from hiring teachers?

What balances the senate is that they know they face reelection. If a party takes advantage of their power they will be held accountable at the polls.