Posted on 05/13/2005 11:23:58 AM PDT by RockinRye
By Kalani Leifer Opinions Columnist Friday, May 13, 2005 last updated May 12, 2005 7:58 PM
In the spirit of one of Stanford's most enduring and productive traditions, White Plaza has once again become the stage for political demonstration. Don't worry, though, you won't find anything controversial like mock same-sex marriages or miniature anti-abortion cemeteries. And while the present display of youthful involvement is being staged by a partisan organization -- the Stanford Democrats -- it should by all means be a bipartisan endeavor. One of the U.S. Senate's own most enduring and productive traditions, the filibuster, is in danger of extinction at the hands of a shortsighted few.
The filibuster, for those long removed from 10th grade U.S. Gov, is the process by which senators in the minority camp can prevent an initiative from reaching a vote by never ending its debate. But the speeches being delivered don't have to relate to the topic at hand -- at all. Some senators have even been known to read from the telephone book. After a period of prolonged frustration, the majority inevitably throws the topic out the window and moves on. So based on my description, what about filibusters, other than the name, is worth saving?
At the very foundation of the argument for preserving this institution is its uniqueability to prevent tyranny of the majority. It has been all too common in American history -- especially in government -- that a simple majority can, without obstacle, impose its will on all. The filibuster remains one of the only vehicles by which the minority of the American populace (which can be quite large, as seen in the past two elections) can have its voice heard. And even then only in a last-resort effort to moderate the voice of the majority.
The reason why the filibuster has been thrust back into the forefront of the American consciousness (and the birdcage in White Plaza) is that after nearly two centuries, the Republican Party is attempting to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees. This newest push has not been entirely unprovoked, to be fair. The 44 Democrats in the Senate (41 are necessary to institute a filibuster) have blocked the approval of 10 of Bush's federal court appointees by using or threatening the use of the filibuster. On the other hand, they have more than 200 under George W.
Because of these blockades, which in the context of history seem strikingly insignificant, the G.O.P. is attempting to rid itself of the nuisance of 199 years of democratic tradition. What these red-state senators fail to realize, however, is that by taking the easy way out in the short-run, they will seriously and adversely affect American politics in the long-run -- for Democrats and inevitably also for Republicans. The filibuster has historically been an advantageous tool for the Republicans as much or more than it has been for Democrats. In fact, the record for filibustering was set by the quintessential Republican, Strom Thurmond, at 24 hours and 18 minutes in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Indeed, the senator dehydrated himself in a steam room prior to taking the floor so that he could drink without taking bathroom breaks -- and even so an aide was on-call in the closet with an emergency bucket.
Seriously, however, the political pendulum will eventually swing back the other way; such has been American political history. In these liberal years, the Republicans will be the minority -- and it will be quite clear then who wants the filibuster and who doesn't.
But ultimately, this boils down to a non-partisan issue. While it goes without saying that the American people have the final word on who constitutes the majority (though the 44 Democrats in the Senate happen to represent significantly more votes than do the 55 Republicans), it should also be recognized that it is undemocratic, even tyrannical, to muffle the minority.
This is why the Stanford Dems have been filibustering for the filibuster in White Plaza around the clock for the past couple of days. This is also why Stanford Republicans should join them.
Kalani will now commence to read from the telephone book and invites you to join him. E-mail him at kalani08@stanford.edu.
Who was a democrat when he did it.
I noticed that too. The Senate is not a representative body, never has been. Senators weren't even elected under the original Constitution.
"At the very foundation of the argument for preserving this institution is its uniqueability to prevent tyranny of the majority."
This is what every loser says. In elementary school it was "Do over!" Democrats will cut off their arms if it will prevent Bush from infringing on their lock on judicial activism. It's the only way the liberals (synonomous for Democrats these days) can get any of their agenda shoved down the throats of the majority.
'Tyranny of the majority' is prose for majority rule when you're not in the majority. You lost, we won - shut the f**k up.
The fact is that filibustering presidential nominations is NOT a 'time-honored tradition', it's simple obstructionism. It's been done once or twice in the past, on each side, but only when the candidate did not have an obvious edge in Senatorial support.
The conniving, lying Democrats should all be Daschle-ed. And they will - American's are not stupid anymore, they don't watch network news or read the NY Times. The Internet has wised up MILLIONS of my fellow citizens, more every day.
never ending debate, is not exactly right.
when its time to vote, every senator
can speak once, as long as he can stand.
when no one wants to speak,
excludes those who have already spoken,
the vote goes on.
"I think I figured it out - the Dems have realized that calling female, black, and Hispanic judges extremists wasn't resonating. So now they're saying the filibuster is a hallowed tradition of democracy. Any chance they're talking about Robert Byrd?"
If I were running for Senate in 2006, 2008, or 2010, I would use any derogatory remarks by any senator that opposed any of Bush's nominations in every political ad I ran. Use their own words to kill their re-election chances.
Let's see how many lies we can spot in this one short sentence:
1. "one of the U.S. Senate's own most enduring and productive traditions" - That is a lie. The filibuster is not an enduring nor productive tradition.
2. "is in danger of extinction" - Another lie. nobody is proposing elimination of the filibuster altogether, only as it relates to judicial appointment confirmations.
3. "at the hands of a shortsighted few" - Another lie. It will take a majority to change the rules, and only in the delusional mind of a liberal that thinks his minority position represents "most" while his opponent's majority position represents only a "few" can this description be accurate.
So there you have it: In a sentence that can be generously described as containing 25 words, this liberal manages to tell three outrageous lies, the first of which could actually be expanded on several levels as to ways in which it is dishonest.
Senators represent NO votes because the Senate was supposed to represent the States, not the people. Prior to 1913, the Senate was appointed, not elected, which means that an appointed Senate represented states longer than an elected Senate has.
-PJ
You almost have it figured out.
The real reason the Stanford Dems want the filibuster is quite simply because they are looking out for the rights of the future minority Republicans. ...
Riiiiight...
"In fact, the record for filibustering was set by the quintessential Republican, Strom Thurmond, at 24 hours and 18 minutes in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Indeed, the senator dehydrated himself in a steam room prior to taking the floor so that he could drink without taking bathroom breaks -- and even so an aide was on-call in the closet with an emergency bucket."
Poor sophmoric author, Strom Thhurmond was a DEMOCRAT when he was filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story...
dvwjr
Must be fifty lies in this article.
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.