Finally, A Wise Man Speaks
Mario Cuomo warns of the "tyranny of the majority":
If Republicans rewrite Senate rules to more easily end filibusters, the country will experience "exactly the kind of `tyranny of the majority' that James Madison had in mind," former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo said Saturday.Cuomo, in the Democratic Party's weekly radio address, said Senate Republicans "are threatening to claim ownership of the Supreme Court and other federal courts, hoping to achieve political results on subjects like abortion, stem cells, the environment and civil rights that they cannot get from the proper political bodies."
"How will they do this? By destroying the so-called filibuster, a vital part of the 200-year-old system of checks and balances in the Senate," Cuomo said.
"The Republicans say it would assure dominance by the majority in the Senate," he said. "That sounds democratic until you remember that the Bill of Rights was adopted, as James Madison pointed out, to protect all of Americans from what he called the `tyranny of the majority."'
...Under Senate rules, 60 votes are needed in the 100-member body to end a filibuster. Republicans are threatening to use their majority to change the rules and require only a simple majority vote to end a filibuster.
"The Republican senators should instead start working with the Democrats to address all the serious problems of this country in the proper forums -- in the Congress and in the presidency -- leaving the judges to be judges instead of a third political branch controlled by the whim of the politicians in power," Cuomo said.
weren't terrorism attacks up in the terrorist report we weren't allowed to see? did you read the washington post today what said they're dropping? orwell was a prophet, man.
kittie at May 1, 2005 8:39 AM
Kitty, thanks for dropping by, but a little more English and a little less bong water, if you will, and maybe a link to the article?
Amy Alkon at May 1, 2005 8:56 AM
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050414-090344-7389r.htm
Fact: The filibuster is nowhere in the Constitution. It is not among the "checks and balances" our Founding Fathers created. It did not even exist until the 1830s, and the "tradition" involves legislation, not judicial appointments. The filibuster was used to defend slavery and oppose the Civil Rights Act — hardly noble purposes. The current obstruction of judges is no "traditional" filibuster: it is the first time in more than 200 years that either party has filibustered to keep judges with majority support off the federal bench.
nash at May 1, 2005 8:23 PM
Here's the part I don't understand. The Republicans are
threatening to change the rules to disallow the filibuster.
Isn't it possible to filibuster against this change until the
Republicans give up?
Ron at May 2, 2005 5:32 AM
What Nash said.
Also, what Reynolds said (or quoted): "Filibusters should come at some personal and political cost. We should abolish the candy-ass filibusters of modern times, and require that if debate is not closed it must therefore happen.
"The prospect of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton or
Ted Kennedy bloviating for hours on C-SPAN would deter filibusters except when the stakes are dire, if for no other reason than the risk that long debate would create a huge amount of fodder for negative advertising."
Get the picture? Filibusters are the SUVs of politics... Newcomers on the road, and not correctly priced for the burden they place on traffic.
Crid at May 2, 2005 8:29 AM
The Democratic filibuster of a half-dozen judges is a false issue. So is the AARP claim that Bush's social security plan would take retirement away from seniors. I hate both parties.
Little ted at May 3, 2005 12:11 AM
Leave a comment