Whatever Happened to Debate?
With the potential filibuster in the Senate over judicial nominations, we should turn to the subject of debate.
In its design by the founding fathers, the senate was to be the deliberative body of the Congress. Members had a long enough term that they didn't have to be as sensitive to the locals and could take a cold hard look at issues without immediate voter reaction, supposedly to rationally assess the issue relative to the good of the country. This would be accomplished by the rational, civil, contemplative debate and discussion by the good members of the senior congressional body.
Where is this debate? Where is fact? Where is civility? Tune into C-Span and watch this process. It often resembles a school yard brawl by twelve year olds more than the cooling pot of the Capitol. Just look for the civility. Listen as the great orators of our time yell "my dad can whip your dad".
Is this a societal thing? Have we degenerated to the point that we can have no civil debate and compromise? If this is an indication of the state of society in today's world, heaven help us. The question arises as to who cares. Being partisan and being civil are not mutually exclusive. Each member should obviously be opinionated but not necessarily closed mind on each issue. Good legislation is the product of give and take, each side hoping to get the best of their ideas incorporated into the final product. At the birth of country many devisive issues had to be addressed. An example was slavery - big barrier between north and south. Cool heads and inteligent minds succeeded keeping this issue alone from making our country still born.
The current situation is so disturbing to me because the crux of the process is to keep away from debate. Why else would the "advice and consent" function of senators have them yield to a reluctance to debate and vote on nominees for the judiciary? Is the desire to prevail greater than devotion to the Constitution and to the voters of their state who sent them to Washington?
Has the Senate taken on the character of street mob? Every nominee the President sends up should be allowed to be debated and voted on on the floor of the Senate. To most of us the idea still rings true that "majority wins". The Constitution enumerates instances calling for a super majority. Advise and consent was not one of them.
If the Democatic party is so in love with the filibuster, do it right. Go with "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Bring in the cots and water pitchers.
In its design by the founding fathers, the senate was to be the deliberative body of the Congress. Members had a long enough term that they didn't have to be as sensitive to the locals and could take a cold hard look at issues without immediate voter reaction, supposedly to rationally assess the issue relative to the good of the country. This would be accomplished by the rational, civil, contemplative debate and discussion by the good members of the senior congressional body.
Where is this debate? Where is fact? Where is civility? Tune into C-Span and watch this process. It often resembles a school yard brawl by twelve year olds more than the cooling pot of the Capitol. Just look for the civility. Listen as the great orators of our time yell "my dad can whip your dad".
Is this a societal thing? Have we degenerated to the point that we can have no civil debate and compromise? If this is an indication of the state of society in today's world, heaven help us. The question arises as to who cares. Being partisan and being civil are not mutually exclusive. Each member should obviously be opinionated but not necessarily closed mind on each issue. Good legislation is the product of give and take, each side hoping to get the best of their ideas incorporated into the final product. At the birth of country many devisive issues had to be addressed. An example was slavery - big barrier between north and south. Cool heads and inteligent minds succeeded keeping this issue alone from making our country still born.
The current situation is so disturbing to me because the crux of the process is to keep away from debate. Why else would the "advice and consent" function of senators have them yield to a reluctance to debate and vote on nominees for the judiciary? Is the desire to prevail greater than devotion to the Constitution and to the voters of their state who sent them to Washington?
Has the Senate taken on the character of street mob? Every nominee the President sends up should be allowed to be debated and voted on on the floor of the Senate. To most of us the idea still rings true that "majority wins". The Constitution enumerates instances calling for a super majority. Advise and consent was not one of them.
If the Democatic party is so in love with the filibuster, do it right. Go with "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Bring in the cots and water pitchers.
posted by Oldhugh | 1:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home