Wednesday, April 27, 2005

They Still Haven't Moved On

Protesters on Ledyard Bridge

Nathaniel Ward

— Protesting for minority rule —

Roughly a dozen Upper Valley residents affiliated with MoveOn.org, a leftist fringe group, protested Wednesday to preserve minority rule in the Senate and to oppose Republican judicial nominees.

Braving the rain, the hardy bunch (not a student among them) began their vigil at 5 p.m. on Ledyard Bridge between Hanover and Norwich. Their protest in favor of existing Senate filibuster rules was co-ordinated with other similar protests around the country.

The protesters boasted several hand-made signs, most of which were probably too small to be seen from the road. One sign prophesized, "Republicans Majority Now, Minority Later." Another proclaimed that "Filibuster = Democracy," suggesting incorrectly that in a democracy minorities pick the leaders. There were no signs advocating positive policy positions.

Several cars honked their horns at the small group, but it was unclear whether they were offering support or expressing anger.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is circulating on littlegreenblog right now too
http://thelittlegreenblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/senate-insanity.html

Democrats in the senate represent 161 million people, Republicans, 131 million.

Anonymous said...

This is a drastic oversimplification, but wasn't the House of Representatives formed to best represent the masses, while the Senate was formed to equalize state representation. Numbers don't matter, just that each state elects two Senators who best represent their interests. Even though a certain NY senator represents millions of Democrats, her power and voice should theoretically be equal to a Republican senator, say from South Dakota, who represents Republicans numbering in the hundreds of thousands.
Now I understand that this is not the way it works due to partisanship and party identification, but it does make your point with the Senate blurry. Popular majority does not, and should not matter in the senate. It's a state representation issue.

Anonymous said...

Just remember...It's the Democrats that are breaking the rules. Not only are they misusing the filibuster, but they should be rolling in the cots like the hardcore filibusters of the past. Where is Harry Reid going through the dictionary or Ted Kennedy pissing his pants!?!? You'd think with all that Scotch it would come more natural to a man of his age than cancer!

Anonymous said...

The US Constitution says the president is entitled to the 'advice and consent' of the full Senate, not just one blow-hard liberal holding the nation hostage.

Anonymous said...

Filibustering is neither a blow-hard liberal or a blow-hard religious rightwinger holding the nation hostage. It is meant to be a debate and when the majority steamrollers the minority this is the only recourse.
In this case only the judicial nominees are being targeted for the filibuster ban, many of which are not - in the opinion of the minority - suitable for the bench. These judicial nominees have the backing of some the most fervently religious in the Senate.
Finally you must be reminded that MANY of the moderate nominees were voted with an up vote. The Republicans will someday be in the minority where they too can use the filibuster to argue their anti-civil rights and pro-religious agenda.

Anonymous said...

"Finally you must be reminded that MANY of the moderate nominees were voted with an up vote. The Republicans will someday be in the minority where they too can use the filibuster to argue their anti-civil rights and pro-religious agenda."

Seems you must be reminded that those moderate nominees that were voted on were for LOWER courts. You know those courts, the ones that do not have a final say in the appeal process.

Bush has had far fewer confirmed nominees than any other president in history. Do some reading up:

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/04/obstructionism.html

http://dalythoughts.com/index.php?p=2983

"Filibustering is neither a blow-hard liberal or a blow-hard religious rightwinger holding the nation hostage. It is meant to be a debate and when the majority steamrollers the minority this is the only recourse."


Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is not the majority steamrolling anything. It is in fact the minority that is steamrolling the majority, hence the majority is now considering abolishing the filibuster rules (which is completely consitutional by the way) so they can no longer be held by the tyranny of the minority.

Filibustering is not part of the checks and balances. Filibustering is not part of democracy, in fact it is very anti-democracy because it completely obstructs the voting process. Voting is the essential component of democracy, the letting voices be heard then decide what shall be done. Simply blocking those voices is not democratic.

Let's not mistake one thing, the current filibustering of nominees is not debate. They are not debating anything about these judges or their qualifications (as their records speak for themselves), they are simply keeping a vote from being held. When a judge has received high marks from lawyers, as well as many constituents voting to retain them on the bench, there is not much to debate on when they are nominated for a higher court, yet a judge with just such a record is still waiting for an up or down vote, and has been waiting for quite a while. The nominee I am talking about is Justice Brown, who's record is exemplary, and the only reason not to like her is because she is a conservative.
http://fairjudiciary.com/cfj_contents/press/brown_hearing.pdf

Here is the funny thing, when filibustering is actually expained properly to people a majority want to get rid of it and have the nominees voted on, you know, the proper way.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-4_28_05_SOH.html

What is happening is not debate over judges, it is simple vitriol spewed forth by a minority who does happen to like who is doing the nominating, simple as that.

"The Republicans will someday be in the minority where they too can use the filibuster to argue their anti-civil rights and pro-religious agenda."

Here is a little history for you. The main opponents to the civil rights movement were Democrats (does the name Robert Byrd ring a bell?). The group of people who broke rank and defeated the filibuster, and subsequently got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed were Republicans. I would provide a link, but some things are better researched by the one needing to know.

Anonymous said...

Some people refuse to learn such facts, as well as such facts like it was Democrats who passed the Jim Crow laws that included the first gun control laws in this country, intended to keep blacks disarmed, unable to defend themselves against lynch mobs. You won't see such facts taught in any African-American Studies course, though.
And of course the fact that Bush has had the two only black Secretaries of State, the only black woman secretary of state, the only black woman National Security Adviser, means nothing to the supposed 'liberals'. I should note that both judicial nominees being blocked are women, one a black woman. Where Oh Where are Pro-Affirmative Action Democrats to be found with such nominees...?