Many on the left are now complaining that the Senate Republicans’ willingness to filibuster any major legislation has somehow tainted the process of legislating. Or, as Jacob Weisberg writes in slate.com, the filibuster rule, ” . . . has devolved into a super-majority threshold for any important legislation.” And to that charge I make two points: 1) Yes; and 2) that is the way it is supposed to be.
As hard as it is for liberals and progressives to accept, this country was founded on the notion that government action (especially action by the central government) should be viewed with suspicion. Large scale changes dictated from Washington should not easily pass. When one political party controls the presidency and both houses of Congress, the only protection against an over zealous government is the requirement that the controlling party must obtain at least some support from the minority party.
I hope some day we can actually turn this ship around and start moving back toward a constitutionally constrained government. In the meantime, the only hope is to slow the ship down, which gives us a better chance to turn back before hitting the iceberg known as socialism.
Let ’em filibuster. Who actually thinks these guys could actually stand up at the podium for a month and read “my pet goat” over and over.
I don’t.
Where are you digging up this assertion? The filibuster you’re discussing here is a rule of the Senate. It has nothing to do with the separation of powers, and the word doesn’t appear at all in the Constitution, which was framed and debated by a number of people (notably, Washington)who thought political parties were destructive.
And when did Conservatives stop believing in up or down votes?
And here’s a question: Why is that Democrats should have to be the ones to compromise? Why isn’t there a Republican willing to vote for, at the very least, the Senate’s version of HCR?
You seem to have forgotten that the Democrats had all the votes they needed in both houses. The Republicans had no way to stop Placebocare even if they had wanted to. I suggest you ask the question of your party as to why they had to bribe, I mean compromise, with people like Landrieu, Nelson and Lieberman.