I really wonder why this groundswell of Democratic principles and backbone is suddenly surfacing in February as opposed to, say, November. But it does seem to be spreading.
The union protests in Wisconsin, of course, are making international news, as has the walkout of Democratic lawmakers who are preventing a quorum. And now, similar events are happening in Indiana.
But I can't help but be frustrated that this sort of energy couldn't have been produced before the elections where these huge Republican majorities were elected under Republican governors. Imagine if the use of the democratic right to make your voice heard had been taken to the voting booth. Actually, we don't have to imagine. The Tea Party already showed us.
Of course, we saw a huge strengthening of the GOP here in Florida as well. I am sure good, working people interested in protecting the of the little guy are wondering if similar tactics to Wisconsin lawmakers need to be applied here.
Well guess what. They can't.
We have so few Democrats in the state Senate that if everyone of them absconded to the Bahamas, it would just give GOP lawmakers more room to stretch their legs. That's right. We are not just the minority party, but a completely insignificant one.
So enjoy the theatrics and the legislative hardball. But remember it would have been completely unnecessary if Democrats had performed batter nationally. And this spring, enjoy your own protests in Tallahassee. Holding a placard in the capital is about the only way your voice will be heard. But until we learn how to direct the energy toward actually elected Democrats in this state, it will be nothing more than a photo op.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hiding in order to prevent a quorum is gutless and an abdication of the trust placed by the elected representatives by the people who elected them, regardless of what political party employs the tactic - it is in fact the equivalent to a filibuster, and we know how much people who believe in democracy love that tactic
ReplyDeleteSo to Wisconsin Democrats I say this - yur yellow streak is showing
Does this mean you oppose the abuse of the filibuster by Republican senators over the past two years?
ReplyDeleteRemember who started this crap - remember the Miguel Estrada nomination of an eminently qualified judge ?
ReplyDeletefrom Wikipedia: "Estrada's was the first filibuster ever to be successfully used against a judicial nominee who had clear support of the majority in the Senate (Fortas only had the support of 45 Senators and ended up resigning his position a year later in disgrace), and the first filibuster of any court of appeals nominee. Estrada's was also the first purely partisan filibuster of any judicial nominee, and the first filibuster of any judicial nominee that was clearly intended to be perpetual rather than temporary. Additionally, Estrada's was the first filibuster that prevented a judicial nominee from joining a court. Republican Senators opposed establishment of these new precedents, and, after Democrats filibustered several further nominees, the so-called Gang of 14 Senators negotiated an agreement to prevent a recurrence absent "extraordinary circumstances."
So sorry, but no. Republicans were the ones who started filibustering judges. Try this: http://books.google.com/books?id=JW-lWL3LdocC&pg=PA223&sig=F4SJQGheDgCFwc2RWM1jNI5EXZM&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
ReplyDeleteWhen Lyndon Johnson nominate Abe Fortas to Supreme Court Chief Justice, the Republican majority filibustered the nomination. That seems to be alluded to in your Wikipedia entry but they get something badly wrong. There was 45-43 vote in the Senate for cloture. That was not a vote on his appointment. In fact, the Senate had already supported his appointment to the Court, so he had the legislative support from the body as far as his firmness to stand. And the only reason Senate Republicans blocked that nomination was that Johnson had already announced he was not seeking re-election. Leaders outwardly said they thought the next president should appoint the Chief Justice.
Also, review history a little on Fortas "resigning his position a year later in disgrace." That after Richard Nixon was elected and embarrassing and illegally obtained audio tapes of conversations between Fortas and a guy seeking a pardon from President Johnson surfaced. the taped did not indicate Fortas had broken the law, but were politically embarrassing enough to force his departure. Now, I can't think of any particular administration which was obsessed with illegally recording conversations and using the recordings to disgrace opponents through distortions of fact, but somehow Nixon got to make another Supreme Court nomination because of this.
Going back to Estrada for precedent? That's just silly. I would have at least expected complaints about 'Borking.' But the truth is Republicans are as dishonest about the history of filibustering judges as they are about their concerns with 'activist judges' only when they overturn laws passed by Republicans while applauding politically-driven decisions like the two judges who have tried to stop ObamaCare.
Hardly silly - it's been a vicious pattern for the left to savagely attack any Latino or Black judge with conservative sympathies in order to try to keep those groups as Democrats. In the case of Estrada, the left feared an eventual Supreme Court nomination that they wouldn't be able to stop without exposing the depths of their moral depravity. The Fortas matter is not at all equivalent to what happened to Bork of Estrada. Fortas had ethical problems arise long before the Nixon tapes were released and again long after he was off the Supreme Court. I've read much on the matter and while the vote was 45-43 for cloture, it is unlikely that Fortas would have obtained enough votes to be confirmed as Chief Justice
ReplyDeleteI am not a member of either political party because neither of them is worthy of my full time support. Both parties do bad things; however, they do different bad things. I don't trust the extremes of either party