Are There Any Democrats with Principles?
Prerequisite: Read my last post “Should Judges be Subject to Filibuster?“
I have been following the news on the judge filibuster issue and have been thinking about principles. In order to stop the unconstitutional use of the filibuster to stop judicial appointments, (please read my last post to see the irrefutable evidence of its unconstitutionality) the 55 Republican majority needs to keep all but 5 of its members "on board" to achieve a tie to be broken by the President of the Senate, Dick Cheney.
The Democrats are feverishly trying to "persuade" 6 Republicans to vote against the constitution's "consent" and in reality use only 51 votes (the constitution requires 66), and without a single state ratifying it (the constitution requires 34), amend the constitution to require a 60 vote "super majority" to confirm judicial nominees.
The discussion of late has been on the handful of “principled Republicans" who would vote their conscience instead of party affiliation, and join the Democrats in this usurpation of Constitutional intent. Obviously no group of 55 could always agree on every issue, some (with principles) would vote different than the majority, right?
Right?
The Democrats have 44 votes in the Senate, and there is one “independent”. Obviously no group of 45 could always agree on every issue, some (with principles) would vote different than the majority, right?
Right?
How is it that 45 Democrats (yes I mean 45) can march in absolute lock step on an issue which causes “principled Republicans” to publicly disagree with and perhaps vote against their own leadership?
I realize that with each election, their numbers falling, even loosing their leader this last election, if they do not stand together to oppose everything, they may feel they will become marginalized in the Senate. Therefore, in order to make their reducing voices heard they must speak with one voice. I completely understand. It is good strategy.
But with so much being made (by Democrats, and the press) of the “principled Republicans” who disagree with their leadership, it causes a stark contrast with the Democrats who, appear not to let their principles get in the way of their party's goals. When was the last time, on a major issue, that a half dozen Democratic Senators spoke out against against their party leadership?
AND when this happened, how many of the Democrats marching in lock step with their leadership referred to these defecting Democrats as “principled” for having done so?
AND how frequently did the New York Times refer to them as “principled”? What about the network news?
When Senator Zell Miller told his Democratic leadership to stop playing politics with our national defense, what did his fellow Democrats have to say about his “principles”? What did the press have to say about his “principles”?
Every Democrat agrees that the “consent” referred to in the Constitution is a simple majority vote. After going to the floor for a vote, NOT ONE Senator will object to the use of the simple majority to confirm ANY judge. ALL 100 understand that “consent” means a simple majority. Yet knowing that to be the intent of the Constitution, is it possible for EVERY single one of the Democrats to agree with the use of a newly found loophole not understood by ANY of the obviously ignorant Senators in the first 200 plus years of our nation, to require a 60 vote super majority to allow the simple majority vote required by the Constitution to go forward?
Is it possible for ALL 45 to agree on this altering of the Constitution? I highly doubt it. The most probable scenario is that a few do have an understanding of the Constitutional intent, but they all know that in order to get the party's goals accomplished they must all “stick together”. Those who do understand this to be wrong have either been “convinced” by the leadership that they must play along, or believe strongly enough in their party that they, on their own, have decided to place party before principle.
Either way with all this talk of the “principled Republicans” speaking out against their leadership, it begs the question:
Are there ANY Democrats with principles?
Read more about it....
7 Judges' Futures Hang in Filibuster Fight - Yahoo! News
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
I have been following the news on the judge filibuster issue and have been thinking about principles. In order to stop the unconstitutional use of the filibuster to stop judicial appointments, (please read my last post to see the irrefutable evidence of its unconstitutionality) the 55 Republican majority needs to keep all but 5 of its members "on board" to achieve a tie to be broken by the President of the Senate, Dick Cheney.
The Democrats are feverishly trying to "persuade" 6 Republicans to vote against the constitution's "consent" and in reality use only 51 votes (the constitution requires 66), and without a single state ratifying it (the constitution requires 34), amend the constitution to require a 60 vote "super majority" to confirm judicial nominees.
The discussion of late has been on the handful of “principled Republicans" who would vote their conscience instead of party affiliation, and join the Democrats in this usurpation of Constitutional intent. Obviously no group of 55 could always agree on every issue, some (with principles) would vote different than the majority, right?
Right?
The Democrats have 44 votes in the Senate, and there is one “independent”. Obviously no group of 45 could always agree on every issue, some (with principles) would vote different than the majority, right?
Right?
How is it that 45 Democrats (yes I mean 45) can march in absolute lock step on an issue which causes “principled Republicans” to publicly disagree with and perhaps vote against their own leadership?
I realize that with each election, their numbers falling, even loosing their leader this last election, if they do not stand together to oppose everything, they may feel they will become marginalized in the Senate. Therefore, in order to make their reducing voices heard they must speak with one voice. I completely understand. It is good strategy.
But with so much being made (by Democrats, and the press) of the “principled Republicans” who disagree with their leadership, it causes a stark contrast with the Democrats who, appear not to let their principles get in the way of their party's goals. When was the last time, on a major issue, that a half dozen Democratic Senators spoke out against against their party leadership?
AND when this happened, how many of the Democrats marching in lock step with their leadership referred to these defecting Democrats as “principled” for having done so?
AND how frequently did the New York Times refer to them as “principled”? What about the network news?
When Senator Zell Miller told his Democratic leadership to stop playing politics with our national defense, what did his fellow Democrats have to say about his “principles”? What did the press have to say about his “principles”?
Every Democrat agrees that the “consent” referred to in the Constitution is a simple majority vote. After going to the floor for a vote, NOT ONE Senator will object to the use of the simple majority to confirm ANY judge. ALL 100 understand that “consent” means a simple majority. Yet knowing that to be the intent of the Constitution, is it possible for EVERY single one of the Democrats to agree with the use of a newly found loophole not understood by ANY of the obviously ignorant Senators in the first 200 plus years of our nation, to require a 60 vote super majority to allow the simple majority vote required by the Constitution to go forward?
Is it possible for ALL 45 to agree on this altering of the Constitution? I highly doubt it. The most probable scenario is that a few do have an understanding of the Constitutional intent, but they all know that in order to get the party's goals accomplished they must all “stick together”. Those who do understand this to be wrong have either been “convinced” by the leadership that they must play along, or believe strongly enough in their party that they, on their own, have decided to place party before principle.
Either way with all this talk of the “principled Republicans” speaking out against their leadership, it begs the question:
Are there ANY Democrats with principles?
Read more about it....
7 Judges' Futures Hang in Filibuster Fight - Yahoo! News
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home