Dems Shouldn't Have Compromised on Filibuster..The compromise was a bad deal for Dems - They look like dogs on GOP leashes
Last May, I wrote about the Senate compromise on the Filibuster. I'd given the opinion that it was a "no-win" for the Democrats, and had they showed strong conviction, they could have stuck to their guns and avoided a politically fruitless compromise. The flame that was once a part of the Democrats' book of rhetoric seems to have been extinguished by political fear.
Raw Story reports that the compromise, in the long run, appears to be one that will prevent the Democrats from employing the filibuster against a staunchly conservative Supreme Court nominee if that particular nominee's philosophical views cannot amount to "extraordinary circumstances." The filibuster can be justified only on questions of personal ethics or character.
The way that this compromise was written, should the Democrats "renege" on the terms of the compromise, the Republicans can attempt to outlaw the filibuster altogether.
We're screwed. Who do I mean by "we"? Everyone except the radically conservative - which is probably one-fifth of the nation's voting population. (In 2004, a plurality of 22% singled out moral values -code for supporting a radically conservative agenda - as the issue of top importance.) Even the moderates lose out. Almost 80% of the voting population of the U.S. seem to have no champions who possess any real power in government today - a terribly frightening thought.
Some compromise. Nice work, you seven Democrats who entered into this snakepit of a decision.
Joe Lieberman
Robert Byrd
Ben Nelson
Mary Landrieu
Daniel Inouye
Mark Pryor
Ken Salazar
Washington Post article