Originally Posted by punkworld

Indeed you aren't arguing republican or democrat, you're arguing uninformed.



How does requiring a fairly broad majority instead of a tiny one take away checks and balances?



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.



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.