Saturday, March 19, 2005
Wrapping Up (Response to WD Continued...)
"Ah.... at least one of the parties, (starts with D) still believes in true democracy and not a republic... HEY, isn't that why you're called REPUBLICANS and they are DEMOCRATS? Root words - Republic and Democracy... I never thought you'd turn your back on true democracy"
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. A basic civics text will explain that the United States of America is a democratic republic. Here, let me help:
The people elect (democratically) representatives (republican) to make laws. This is all laid out in the US Constitution.
Are you suggesting that we need to revise the way this country is governed? If you think your party's had a hard time under the current rules, how do you think instituting a true democracy would help?
I, of course, would oppose any such move because:
1) This is a big country, and takes somebody who's almost constantly "on the job" to make decisions. It would be impractical to have the public vote every time some policy decision needed to be made. Response time would seriously lag.
2) I'm a firm believer in Federalism. To me, Federalism allows various groups of differently-minded people to run things the way they see fit in their individual communities. Federalism supports political diversity.
3) With a true democracy you run the risk of the Tyranny of the Majority. As one of your own Senators mentioned at that MOO revival, the Senate (for example) was designed to be a deliberative body not directly (or frequently) exposed to the passions of the populous.
4) Where is the room for the Judiciary in a true democracy? If all decisions are directly made by the public, what acts as a restraint on them with regard to personal liberty? What if the people take a liking to stripping some un-favored segment of the population of their civil rights? If my earlier supposition is true, that the population tends toward conservatism, what happens to people like you?
All that said, this is still a democratic republic. The systems of government may not be immediately responsive to every public whim, but, over time, the systems of government will eventually shape themselves to match the general public mindset. It's supposed to work that way, and it usually does. That's what you've been seeing over the last couple decades. That's what you find so infuriating and frustrating.
Sure, you're absolutely correct that this current trend is likely at some point to reverse. But that's not what's happening now. And it doesn't really represent any kind of political counterpunch. It's a lot like saying, "yah, well you wait! At some point the sun is going to rise." Huh? Yah. Whatever.
If you meant that as a warning that any structural changes my side makes could then, at some point, fall into the hands of your side... point taken. You're right. And that is always in the back of my mind, and the minds of the Conservatives. And it does provide a cautionary note, especially with regard to the upcoming Nuclear Option to allow a simple majority of Senators to end a debate to allow a vote on a judicial nominee. But what you may not be aware of is the fact that the Democrats were the first party to use filibusters to block judicial nominees. The Republicans voted down many Democrat nominees, but that was either a result of not providing a favorable committee report, or a direct vote of the full Senate. Not filibustering.
So, why should my side worry about removing a misused tool we never used anyway?
Besides, it's not like this is unprecedented. The House used to have filibusters (or the rough equivalent). But that was done away with a long time ago. And even the Senate can't filibuster budget bills (that's now the drilling in ANWAR bill was passed).
It seems, in fact, that it is you who are objecting to democratic ideals. This conversation began on the topic of filibustering judicial nominees. How long do you expect the American people to idly sit by while their will is repeatedly thwarted? The people voted to configure the Senate with 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one independent (who votes with the Dems). Likewise, the American people voted a majority of the House to be composed of Republicans. And, just to review, they voted in a Republican president. I sense a trend. LOL
Isn't it a reflection of democratic values that these collective popular decisions will eventually seep through into the machinery of government? A whole lot of people (including yours truly) are a whole lot of pissed off because we repeatedly have our will dismissed, overturned, discounted and treated with contempt by an out-of-control madcap judiciary. We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore. And if we can't get satisfaction with this lot of elected representatives, we'll find another bunch who will friggin listen to us.
Your judicial dictatorship is going down, WD. And it's going to do so under the weight of the majority of the American people. We've had it, and we expect our elected officials to do what they're told - and fix it.
"Remember.... once George finishes screwing the country while you guys BLINDLY follow orders"
Why "BLINDLY"? Or is this yet another example of lib contempt for anybody who doesn't fall in with your point of view? That has always confused me. I certainly credit you with having thought your way to your political positions. You're a smart guy. Wrong, but smart. :D
I mean, go ahead and assume that your opponents (including me) are a brain-dead lot of ill-informed nincompoops, but you should understand that that leaves you completely unprepared for a conservative with an operational neuron, or two. What are you going to do at that point? Hurl more political bombs?
You referenced in a (non-published) e-mail that you were going to turn lose a plethora of Left-Wing debate ninjas, kind of the rhetorical version of the Crazy 88.
Bring 'em on. DigiSamurai is ready to begin the lesson.
"Ah.... at least one of the parties, (starts with D) still believes in true democracy and not a republic... HEY, isn't that why you're called REPUBLICANS and they are DEMOCRATS? Root words - Republic and Democracy... I never thought you'd turn your back on true democracy"
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. A basic civics text will explain that the United States of America is a democratic republic. Here, let me help:
1 entry found for democratic republic.
Main Entry: democratic republic
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: a form of government embodying democratic principles and where a monarch is not the head of state
The people elect (democratically) representatives (republican) to make laws. This is all laid out in the US Constitution.
Are you suggesting that we need to revise the way this country is governed? If you think your party's had a hard time under the current rules, how do you think instituting a true democracy would help?
I, of course, would oppose any such move because:
1) This is a big country, and takes somebody who's almost constantly "on the job" to make decisions. It would be impractical to have the public vote every time some policy decision needed to be made. Response time would seriously lag.
2) I'm a firm believer in Federalism. To me, Federalism allows various groups of differently-minded people to run things the way they see fit in their individual communities. Federalism supports political diversity.
3) With a true democracy you run the risk of the Tyranny of the Majority. As one of your own Senators mentioned at that MOO revival, the Senate (for example) was designed to be a deliberative body not directly (or frequently) exposed to the passions of the populous.
4) Where is the room for the Judiciary in a true democracy? If all decisions are directly made by the public, what acts as a restraint on them with regard to personal liberty? What if the people take a liking to stripping some un-favored segment of the population of their civil rights? If my earlier supposition is true, that the population tends toward conservatism, what happens to people like you?
All that said, this is still a democratic republic. The systems of government may not be immediately responsive to every public whim, but, over time, the systems of government will eventually shape themselves to match the general public mindset. It's supposed to work that way, and it usually does. That's what you've been seeing over the last couple decades. That's what you find so infuriating and frustrating.
Sure, you're absolutely correct that this current trend is likely at some point to reverse. But that's not what's happening now. And it doesn't really represent any kind of political counterpunch. It's a lot like saying, "yah, well you wait! At some point the sun is going to rise." Huh? Yah. Whatever.
If you meant that as a warning that any structural changes my side makes could then, at some point, fall into the hands of your side... point taken. You're right. And that is always in the back of my mind, and the minds of the Conservatives. And it does provide a cautionary note, especially with regard to the upcoming Nuclear Option to allow a simple majority of Senators to end a debate to allow a vote on a judicial nominee. But what you may not be aware of is the fact that the Democrats were the first party to use filibusters to block judicial nominees. The Republicans voted down many Democrat nominees, but that was either a result of not providing a favorable committee report, or a direct vote of the full Senate. Not filibustering.
So, why should my side worry about removing a misused tool we never used anyway?
Besides, it's not like this is unprecedented. The House used to have filibusters (or the rough equivalent). But that was done away with a long time ago. And even the Senate can't filibuster budget bills (that's now the drilling in ANWAR bill was passed).
It seems, in fact, that it is you who are objecting to democratic ideals. This conversation began on the topic of filibustering judicial nominees. How long do you expect the American people to idly sit by while their will is repeatedly thwarted? The people voted to configure the Senate with 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one independent (who votes with the Dems). Likewise, the American people voted a majority of the House to be composed of Republicans. And, just to review, they voted in a Republican president. I sense a trend. LOL
Isn't it a reflection of democratic values that these collective popular decisions will eventually seep through into the machinery of government? A whole lot of people (including yours truly) are a whole lot of pissed off because we repeatedly have our will dismissed, overturned, discounted and treated with contempt by an out-of-control madcap judiciary. We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore. And if we can't get satisfaction with this lot of elected representatives, we'll find another bunch who will friggin listen to us.
Your judicial dictatorship is going down, WD. And it's going to do so under the weight of the majority of the American people. We've had it, and we expect our elected officials to do what they're told - and fix it.
"Remember.... once George finishes screwing the country while you guys BLINDLY follow orders"
Why "BLINDLY"? Or is this yet another example of lib contempt for anybody who doesn't fall in with your point of view? That has always confused me. I certainly credit you with having thought your way to your political positions. You're a smart guy. Wrong, but smart. :D
I mean, go ahead and assume that your opponents (including me) are a brain-dead lot of ill-informed nincompoops, but you should understand that that leaves you completely unprepared for a conservative with an operational neuron, or two. What are you going to do at that point? Hurl more political bombs?
You referenced in a (non-published) e-mail that you were going to turn lose a plethora of Left-Wing debate ninjas, kind of the rhetorical version of the Crazy 88.
Bring 'em on. DigiSamurai is ready to begin the lesson.
Comments:
Post a Comment
