Replies

It looks like some weak-kneed spineless RINO Republicans and Democrats conspired to compromise away three critical clauses of our Constitution that require only a simple majority vote in the senate unless specified otherwise (50 votes plus the Vice President in the current case) to "advise and consent" to presidential judicial appointments, and to change the Senate rules. The compromised clauses of our Constitution are given below.

Some "compromises" are entirely unfair, unjust, and unacceptable. For example, suppose Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers' Party imposed a "compromise" upon their Jewish victims, and mass-murdered only 3 million Jews in the Holocaust instead of 6 million Jews. Hitler and his Nazis could claim they achieved a "compromise", which would still be entirely unfair, unjust, and unacceptable. Obviously, the Jewish position of murdering zero Jews would be the only fair, just, and acceptable outcome.

This example disproves the claim made by some people that in any dispute between two parties, the reasonable solution is a compromise position that lies somewhere in the middle between the positions claimed by each side.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Article I, Section 5, Clause 2:

Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 4:

Clause 4: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

- Michael D. Robbins, FraudFactor.com

Support Redistricting Reform For Better Government !

I was thinking about this yesterday... when you look back at history, you don't see too many famous compromises that ended well. Abortion is one example, but I was thinking of the legislative compromises over slavery as well. Has any historical figure ever been celebrated as "the Great Compromiser"? I think perhaps Clay or Webster had the title at one time, but it doesn't seem to wear well. These deals don't seem to stand up well to the scrutiny of history, do they?

Jonah Goldberg:

...The most annoying thing about the compromise, I believe, is the logic underneath it.
First, there's the abiding faith - eternally celebrated by the press - that compromise is always and everywhere a good thing. If I say two plus two equals four, and you say two plus two equals 1 billion, is it really such a great advance to split the difference and agree that it's somewhere near 500 million? The media's love of compromise is the moral hazard that comes from always seeking both sides of an issue. The press should seek both sides, of course, but it shouldn't conclude that simply because each side has good arguments that both are right, or that splitting the difference is enlightened. The media sees such blurring as wisdom, when really it's cynicism....

Nailed It!

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of good stuff that is worthy attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately on my page.

Besides this one, I keep separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson, Lee Harris, David Warren, Orson Scott Card. You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about).

Jonah writes:

Besides, it is far more dangerous when democracies choose not to have arguments. This is because political arguments represent conflicts of legitimate interests and legitimate perspectives.

Jonah, we live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy, and after 200 years we shouldn't need to argue about our Constitutions intent.

Intellectually shabby compromises by their very nature don't settle the disagreements, they merely postpone and exacerbate them. For example, for more than a decade there's been a growing consensus that the Supreme Court's compromise on Roe vs. Wade made things worse in this country.
It robbed the people of their right to settle this question democratically in their own communities.

Roe was not a 'compromise' Jonah. It was a bold constitutional statement that women have the right to decide to abort early term pregnancies, and that if States/localities disagreed, - such abortions must be tried as murder.
There is no 'democratic community right' to decree that early term abortion is murder. Juries decide that question in America.

In response, the pro-life and pro-choice movements were born, and our politics have been the worse for it.

Our politics are 'for the worse' because constitutional principles are being ignored.

Indeed, that's the great irony here. This filibuster fight itself is the bastard of Roe vs. Wade. If the Supreme Court hadn't declared that the courts were going to decide abortion and issues like it, then judicial nominations wouldn't be nearly so high-stakes for both sides.

The supreme court was forced to decide issues like abortion because State/local governments have been, and still are, ignoring the Constitution/Bill of Rights in writing laws that restrict individual liberties.

--- Jonah, if you're going to pass yourself off as a conservative commentator on Constitutional subjects, you really need to study the subject in more detail. --
Claiming 'communitarian' rights for local government is a major blunder; you've exposed the east coast liberal basis for much of your political position.