Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FunForOne
First of all, we are using the term checks and balances wrong.
The system of checks and balances is not supposed to allow minority senators to get their way and oppose the majority. The system of checks and balances refers to the different branches of government.
The checks and balances system that keeps one branch, ie. the president from "ruling" in a way that is not in the best interest of the people is for the people to vote on and elect senators to represent them.
The senate vote is the check and balance of another branch of government.
What if their were 99 senators from one party and 1 from the opposing party? Should that one senator be allowed to stop the progress of the other 99 senators?
The same thing is happening, just that the numbers are different.
However we want to say it, what is happening is that a minority of Americans are holding the government hostage and not allowing the senators we elected to do their jobs we elected them to do.
|
sorry but you are mostly wrong.
yes the congress is there to check the president so that he can't just sign whatever he wants into law. But when the majority of the congress is repub and the president is repub then basically that makes this check non-existant. The check is in place to allow that the minority has a voice. if there are 99 repubs and 1 dem ( or reversed ) and that 1 lone senetor fillibusters so that he can be heard, then he must be heard and some kind of a concession must be at least approached. That is what happened here. The dems have offered to basically approve 3 of these judges in exchange for the some give on the repub side. But the repubs what it all or none.
We are allowing the senetors we elected to do thier job. I'm from a state that elected democrats. That would mean they are representing a more liberal constiuancy and by fighting against the current majority they are doing exactly what we elected them to do..
Just because you are the minority does not mean you should be voiceless.