- Republicans like Trent Lott wouldn’t be able to filibuster legislation against bills that aid workers in devastated industries (like aviation workers who lost their jobs after 9/11).
- As Senator Leahy has noted, Republicans wouldn’t be able to use filibusters to block democratic economic legislation, health care reform, bills to protect unions from corporate use of scabs as they did in 1993 and 1994.
- Republicans won’t be able to filibuster judicial nominations by a Democratic president, as they did during the Clinton years.
- Republicans won’t be able to delay legislation governing ethical activity by federal employees as they did in 1993, when they filibustered amendments to the Hatch Act.
- Republicans would not be able to filibuster gun control legislation offered by Democrats. The Freepers are very concerned about preserving this filibuster.
Our inner-Democrat, in other words, would be very happy if there were no filibuster, because laws we like would be easier to pass. Of course, Pudentilla recognizes that by claiming this she puts herself squarely in the “some day Democrats will control Congress again camp,” of which Senator Frist and Rep. Delay, agents of the “red” Christian movement to destroy the Constitution, are not members.
But our inner-democrat, who thinks that the evidence of history is on the side of the Founders, who wanted the Senate to slow things down and created an institution whose processes and habits would ensure democracy by preventing the tyranny of a majority. Even when the majority consists of hippy-dippy liberals like Pudentilla, who of course are correct about most policy issues, the Founders thought that they should not be able to tyrannize the minority – even when the minority consists of despicable “red” Christians who want both to destroy the Constitution and to desecrate the message of love and hope Jesus preached.
So this Democrat thinks we should support the filibuster for the sake of our democracy, which, in the end, is more important than her party.
