L.A. Times Editors Endorse Nuclear Option
That's not an Onion headline. It's for real.
It's not even their token conserative writer - it is from the entire editorial board. They have an interesting take on the issue. Basically, they think the filibuster should be eliminated for everything, not just for appointment nominees. They base this on the recognition that the filibuster is a tradition that reflects not principle, but this:
"The filibuster is a reactionary instrument that goes too far in empowering a minority of senators. It's no accident that most filibusters have hindered progressive crusades in Washington, be it on civil rights or campaign finance reform. California's Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, one of those recent converts to the filibuster, embarrassed herself by hailing Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) as her inspiration at a pro-filibuster rally. At least Byrd is being consistent in his support — he filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act."
Via RCP
It's not even their token conserative writer - it is from the entire editorial board. They have an interesting take on the issue. Basically, they think the filibuster should be eliminated for everything, not just for appointment nominees. They base this on the recognition that the filibuster is a tradition that reflects not principle, but this:
"The filibuster is a reactionary instrument that goes too far in empowering a minority of senators. It's no accident that most filibusters have hindered progressive crusades in Washington, be it on civil rights or campaign finance reform. California's Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, one of those recent converts to the filibuster, embarrassed herself by hailing Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) as her inspiration at a pro-filibuster rally. At least Byrd is being consistent in his support — he filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act."
Via RCP
posted by Hammertime at
4/26/2005 12:33:00 PM
2 Comments:
Is it my imagination or are all of the Senators who love the filibuster now the same Senators who wanted to get rid of the Electoral College after the 2000 election because it didn’t represent the majority?
Whatever works, huh? And the Democrat’s wonder why they keep losing ground.
By
David M. Smith, at 4/26/2005 01:27:00 PM
The filibuster is a conservative rule to aid in the checks and balances. (That would be the small 'c' conservative, not this new Movement Conservatism, obviously).
I've read several liberal sites claiming we should go ahead and get rid of the filibuster as it will in the long run make it easier for liberals, not conservatives.
The fact is almost no one really cares about things like states rights, checks and balances, or really even those children of The Enlightenment, democracy, capitalism, science and the courts. Most people just choose whichever side helps their cause right now. It's always been that way, which makes the accomplishments of our founding fathers all the more amazing.
By
Xactiphyn, at 4/26/2005 06:56:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home