Democrats disenfranchise over 290,810,000 people!
I have been thinking lately about the current flap in the Senate over the filibuster of Bush's judicial nominees. As you may know the Democrats are using the filibuster to prevent the Senate from having an up or down vote on several of Bush's nominees.
Now, during the 2004 election the Democratic mantra was "Count every vote!" They were rabidly declaring that everyone should have a chance to vote and that every vote should be counted. After the election conspiracy theories and controversies were continually rehashed by the Democrats for months. One of the biggest complaints was the accusation that the Republicans had engaged in a number of nefarious activities which effectively resulted in preventing people from being able to vote. The Democrats were outraged to think that anyone would seek to prevent anyone from being able to have their voice heard by casting their vote.
As a representative Republic, the United States operates on the fundamental principle that the people elect representatives whose job it is to represent their interests through the proper execution of their respective offices.
As of the 2003 census, the U.S. population stood at 290,810,000 people. As our duly elected representatives the President and all 100 Senators do the work of those 290,810,000 people just as if those people were doing the work themselves. That is the fundamental premise upon which our government stands.
One of the duties of the President is to nominate judicial appointments. One of the duties of Senators is to vote on the suitability of those nominees to hold the positions for which they have been nominated. By using the filibuster to prevent up or down votes on the President's nominees, the Democrats are, in effect, preventing all 290,810,000 people from being able to have their voices heard through the time honored tradition of the vote.
From Dictionary.com we find the following definition:
Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
disenfranchise
v : deprive of voting rights [syn: disfranchise] [ant: enfranchise]
Given this definition and the Democrat's previously held position with respect to disenfranchising voters and the need to count all of the votes, it should be obvious to all how the Democratic party is engaging in yet another flip-flop solely based on their own interests (as opposed to the interests of the people) and their own personal gain.
This is scandalous, simply scandalous.
Now, during the 2004 election the Democratic mantra was "Count every vote!" They were rabidly declaring that everyone should have a chance to vote and that every vote should be counted. After the election conspiracy theories and controversies were continually rehashed by the Democrats for months. One of the biggest complaints was the accusation that the Republicans had engaged in a number of nefarious activities which effectively resulted in preventing people from being able to vote. The Democrats were outraged to think that anyone would seek to prevent anyone from being able to have their voice heard by casting their vote.
As a representative Republic, the United States operates on the fundamental principle that the people elect representatives whose job it is to represent their interests through the proper execution of their respective offices.
As of the 2003 census, the U.S. population stood at 290,810,000 people. As our duly elected representatives the President and all 100 Senators do the work of those 290,810,000 people just as if those people were doing the work themselves. That is the fundamental premise upon which our government stands.
One of the duties of the President is to nominate judicial appointments. One of the duties of Senators is to vote on the suitability of those nominees to hold the positions for which they have been nominated. By using the filibuster to prevent up or down votes on the President's nominees, the Democrats are, in effect, preventing all 290,810,000 people from being able to have their voices heard through the time honored tradition of the vote.
From Dictionary.com we find the following definition:
Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
disenfranchise
v : deprive of voting rights [syn: disfranchise] [ant: enfranchise]
Given this definition and the Democrat's previously held position with respect to disenfranchising voters and the need to count all of the votes, it should be obvious to all how the Democratic party is engaging in yet another flip-flop solely based on their own interests (as opposed to the interests of the people) and their own personal gain.
This is scandalous, simply scandalous.
Labels: Democrats
posted by GoRight! at 1:49 PM
6 Comments:
hey moron the democrats actually represent more americans than the republican majority does.
also 60 of clinton`s nominee`s were deprived a vote using other methods, using your reasoning what`s the difference how the vote is denied.the right wing is nothing but a bunch of hypocrites!
damn you Anonymous! you beat me to it.
Anyway, by Democrats "disenfranchising" errr...a minority of americans if you want to call it that, they are preventing a radical right-wing federal judge from possibly disenfranchising every American for the 40 year span that they're on the federal bench (and possibly more).
A minority of americans vs. every american for 40 years. choice sounds simple to me.
To make an arguement that these are "just regular judges" is stupid. Democrats have let over 200 of Bush's judges get confirmed, so there is obviously something different about these 10. And it's obviously not their religious faith either. Perhaps the fact that they put their faith above the law, but not the faith itself.
Ready for substance? You got it.
Ridiculous. And here's why:
Republican Senators are not being prevented from voting. They are voting. They're merely being outvoted on cloture, and therefore can't get a vote on what they want to vote on.
Be careful what you posit. Because if it counts as disenfranchisement to prevent Republican Senators from voting on business that they want to see voted on, then it must also count as disenfranchisement to prevent Democratic Senators from bringing their legislation to the floor, as has been the regular order of business under the Republican majority.
Anonymous complains that the Republicans used various means to block 60 of Clinton's nominees. I believe that the time that the Democrats were arguing that this was wrong.
I happen to agree with them. Blocking an up or down vote is wrong.
So why the change in position on this issue? I think that the answer is as I stated in the post. They care more about personal gain than they do about letting the people's duly elected representatives, and therefore the people themselves, have their say by a vote.
fleetadmiralj is complaining that the Republican Senators only represent a "minority" of the population. I have not verified this assertion, but it seems plausible.
Even so, I thought that the Democrats were all about fighting for the rights of the minority. If the Democrats prevent an up or down vote they are in essence preventing the minority from being heard and making sure that their votes actually counted for something.
That was the point of my post. The Democrats are, in effect, preventing the votes (and non-votes) of the entire population of the U.S. from having any effect.
Seems unDemocratic to me.
kagro x correctly highlights the point that the Senators are voting on cloture and that this is preventing a vote on the issues at hand, namely the appointment of Bush's nominees.
My argument, however, is focused on the rights of the people to have their voices be heard (through their elected representatives) on these nominees.
Using the filibuster to prevent an up or down vote prevents those representatives from being able to register their position, and by proxy, the position of the people that they represent.
A majority of the voters re-elected President Bush, in part, because they wanted him to nominate judges who would adjudicate based on the law and not their personal ideologies. Similarly all of the Senators, who BTW represent all of the people, were similarly selected by their consituents to, among other things, render judgement on the suitability of the President's nominees to hold office. The means by which the Senators are able to do so is by an up or down vote of the entire Senate.
So, again, using the filibuster to prevent a full vote is tantamount to disenfranchisement.
As for the other precedural workings of the Senate and how legislation is prioritized and brought to the floor, I am sure that the Republicans are merely following the lead set for them by the Democrats for the 40 years prior to the Republicans gaining control of the Senate. Whatever those procedures may be, however, they have no bearing on the issues of whether preventing an up or down vote constitutes disenfranchisement.
Post a Comment
<< Home