Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FunForOne
I'm not arguing republican or democrat on this one, I just think you guys are not understanding the system of checks and balances.
|
Indeed you aren't arguing republican or democrat, you're arguing uninformed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FunForOne
Assuming checks and balances pertained to the political affiliations inside the senate instead of the branches of goverment, you guys are taking away that checks and balances system by giving power to a minority.
|
How does requiring a fairly broad majority instead of a tiny one take away checks and balances?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FunForOne
You are giving power to someone who opposes the majority of the people in the country and making the majority of elected officials powerless. Thats not in the best interest of the people.
|
Wrong. It makes sure that certain important decisions can't be effortlessly made unless supported by a broad majority. If anything, it is vital for the system of checks and balances that only judges with broad support get appointed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FunForOne
It seems lately that people want to change the meaning of majority. When a group of people make a decision based on a majority vote, it would be nice if all agreed and the vote was unanimous, but the fact is that in a majority vote, 51% = the same result as 99%. We dont let John Kerry make presidental decisions becuase he got alot of votes.
|
And a filibuster can be ended with 60 votes... that doesn't suit the republicans, so they want to change it. Now, quite obviously, that's a very dangerous attitude... if you blindly change the fundamentals of the system wherever they limit your power, you are creating the very real danger that you will cripple the system.
When groups start changing the system itself to expand their power or to win on specific issues, the stability that is the aim of a system of balance is threatened.