Thursday, April 28, 2005

Simple or Super Majority?

Politicians, be they liberal or conservative, are rarely fair when dealing with each other. Neither party cares how blatant their unfair acts are. Do our politicians represent their constituents or their parties? If you are still naive you probably think we have a government for the people. A favorite example of politics at its worst is the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court Justice Thomas. The "highlight" of the confirmation process was the accusation of sexual harassment by a one time employee of Thomas, Anita Hill. Thomas was the Conservatives' favorite because he was anti-abortion. Hill was to the Liberals like David was to the Jews except Hill didn't slay the Goliath Thomas. I still think that either of them could be lying, however; Hill could gain nothing from her accusation. Hill would and did pay dearly for her accusation regardless of the outcome of the Thomas hearings. Thomas, on the other hand, would gain by lying. I'm not saying that Thomas lied. I'm saying that if Thomas had harassed Anita Hill, lying would benefit Thomas. But, if Thomas had not harassed Hill, lying would not benefit Hill even if Thomas had not been confirmed. Yet, every Conservative believed Thomas and every Liberal believed Hill. To the man. No exceptions. That's politics rather than a coincidence.

Changing the rules of the Senate is politics akin to redistricting while your party is in the majority. Is this an act that only a Conservative would commit? No. Liberals are as political as the Conservatives. The filibuster is part of the Senate's process and should remain so. Requiring a Super Majority to stop a filibuster is also part of the Senate's process and should remain so.

The urgency to change the process exists only because the Conservatives can't amass the 60% Super Majority required to break the filibuster so that the Conservatives, alone, can confirm Bush's "political" judicial appointments. Please keep in mind that I believe that nothing would be different if the "shoe was on the other foot".

If our Senators won’t rise above partisan politics, then our bench openings will be filled with politically motivated judges as often as the majority party in the Senate is also in the White House. Any process rule that minimizes the majority party's domination, especially when making court appointments, is a rule worth keeping. I believe we would be best served by an apolitical judiciary. How often has a court acted politically rather than only judicially? If you think, as I do, that this happens too often, then cherish the filibuster and the Super Majority required to break it.


Laura said...

Great blog!! A government that is run by any political party's own agenda is not a fair government. My definition of a fair government is one that has only "the People's" best interests at heart. Thanks for blogging. It's good to see something new.

Anonymous said...

Okay, so the post is a little over my head (anything politics related ususally is) but I do like how you've changed your blog. Nice job!! How'd you figure that one out?!

........... said...

I agree with Sara, this is a little over my head. Super Majority? Fillbuster? They sound like good ideas for dinner dishes. :-)