Posted on 05/03/2005 1:15:23 AM PDT by Frank T
NEW YORK (AP) -- 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.'"
"It sounds nearly absurd when you learn that the minority Democrats in the Senate actually represent more Americans than the majority Republicans do," Cuomo said.
Democrats have blocked 10 of President Bush's appellate court choices through filibuster threats. Under current 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.
Cuomo, who was leading in Democratic polls in late 1991 when he pulled the plug on a possible presidential bid, lost the New York governorship in 1994 as he sought a fourth term against current Republican Gov. George Pataki. He later turned down a chance to be considered by President Clinton for a Supreme Court seat.
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
"[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."
Does this man actually believe this? Goes to show that some Democrats will say anything.
It is surreal reading what liberal Democrats say, regarding checks and balances. Those things were put in to prevent the federal government from overarching beyond its specified duties. Democrat administrations (and some GOP ones too, like Roosevelt's) jumped that shark a loooong time ago.
Do contemporary Dems really believe they can flip some conservative voters into backing their agenda? Who else could they be appealing to with such rhetoric?
After a few generations - a lifetime - the old New Deal is finally being dismantled. Let's hope that pols like Bush and Frist don't break our hearts.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was NOT a Republican!
The *other* one.
I'm more confused as to why the mere threat of a filibuster has been enough to kill 10 nominations.
Why? Because since '98 it's been Party over Principle.
Principle, and years of bad results from Dem rule (see: stagflation), are what got Reagan elected, and then GOP rule in congress with their first majority in decades.
But that one bad election year in 1998, some losses in the house, shocked the party into thinking it would loose that majority status.
From that point on, actions taken (and not taken) have been about trying to find that "middle," and to not do anything "controversial" that would supposedly erode more numbers. It about not losing more congressmen and senators, rather than governing in such a way as to gain public support and a proactive agenda for reform. Like they did in the first place.
The Republicans have been following this approach for six years now, and but for the grace of Texas redistricting, narrowly averted losing some of the House again. But unless they start enacting the agenda they are supposed to do, haven't they become what conservatives rallied against for so long?
Yes, it would be great if Frist got some stones and stared down a filibuster. Let the Dems go on for 30 hours and be done with it. Maybe the Republicans just want to win this issue quietly somehow, and not raise too much scrutiny? Who knows?
But if they fail in getting originalist judges in, it's back to square one. That, and gnashing of teeth.
Not like I can edit the keyword section, you know.
will experience "exactly the kind of `tyranny of the majority' that James Madison had in mind,"
----
Beats the "tyranny of the minority" we have now.
It appears that Cuomo doesn't understand the tyranny of the minority which is the original motivation for the consent of the governed.
All of these has been Democrats are making my brain hurt!!!!
What did Teddy do that was so wrong? Really, I am not that well versed in his presidency.
I'm more confused as to why the mere threat of a filibuster has been enough to kill 10 nominations.How can so many Republican Senators continue to walk the halls of congress when their spines have atrophied? It's a biological miracle.
Who cares what His Arrogance Pope Mario the Pious happens to think!
"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."
Mario the Constitutional scholar and professional liar.
Neither was Andrew Jackson - "The Supreme Court has made its decision, now let them enforce it."
Teddy Roosevelt was one of America's greatest Presidents and one of our greatest Americans.
FDR was the guy who threatened to pack the Supreme COurt with additional justices if the court didn't go along with his programs. The Constitution doesn't specify the number of justices on the Supreme Court - nine has just been traditional.
(With the kind of decisions they have been coming down with lately we could get by with just three - Moe, Larry and Curly.)
I AM IN UPSTATE N.Y.
as a side note,one of my fondest memories was seeing a picture of mario in the morning paper with his face in his hands the night he lost the election.
i am by no means a pataki fan.
i lift my coffee cup to salute the day!
GODSPEED!
Hey AP--this was last weeks poropaganda--"news". Where weree you. Trying to get longer mileage out of a non-story?
Mario Cuomo? Why no one has cared what Mario Cuomo has had to say in years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.