The "nuclear option" re: filibusters

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 10:44 pm

What I find particularly tasty is that Ahkbar manipulated Beeker into defending Rsak.

/highfive Ahkbar!

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:06 am

Honestly I usually have him on ignore for the same reason. I have found him to be thin skinned and defensive on a level that is only exceeded by his good buddy Jecks.

?........

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:36 am

I nearly defended you in the same breath, Embar, but I felt that associating you that closely with Rsak was more harsh than you deserved.

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 8:12 am

Akhbar,

It is neither trolling nor stupidity. It is a consistent stance based on a different view of the world then most others.

Vaulos,

Ddrak is just pointing out that the minority doesn't have positive control of anything- the minority can't enact law or policy.

And this is where Ddrak is flat out wrong.

In legal cases where the crest of the city has a cross and it must be removed the minority of citizens in that town are asking for change with the help of a few judges. The ones bringing the suit and the judges that agreed are in the minority yet they have forced the majority to act counter to their own beliefs. Were an election held to decide the matter it would have been decided differently.

It would be like saying that the US is under the tyranny of the majority of Americans who don't vote.

Your comparison is pointless because the Americans who do not vote are not trying to change anything.

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 8:35 am

The ones bringing the suit and the judges that agreed are in the minority yet they have forced the majority to act counter to their own beliefs.

Untrue....the majority has a fundemental belief in the Constitution. All that occurs is the belief in the Bill of Rights supplants and in fact trumps the belief in keeping the crest.

Were an election held to decide the matter it would have been decided differently.

This is the difference between a democracy and a republic.

Post by **Ddrak** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:13 am

Jecks,

He hasn't figured out yet that individuals enacting a policy that was put in place by a majority is completely irrelavent. Hence my previous comment on the matter.

Dd

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:43 am

Untrue....the majority has a fundemental belief in the Constitution. All that occurs is the belief in the Bill of Rights supplants and in fact trumps the belief in keeping the crest.

Are you honestly willing to bet that if a vote was taken to decide the matter that it would result in the same outcome?

The reality is that it would not.

This is the difference between a democracy and a republic.

Not in debate, which is why it makes my comment of the tyranny of the minority being the only solution for the tyranny of the majority.

Ddrak,

He hasn't figured out yet that individuals enacting a policy that was put in place by a majority is completely irrelavent.

Of course it is irrelevent since that fact has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

If a vote were held the outcome would have been different which confirms the statement that the minority has enforced change. Whether you believe the methods are tyrannical or not is your decisions to make, but the process goes on and is part of our system of government. Your inability to comprehend this is rather puzzling.

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:56 am

Rsak,

I should not have to explain this to you. Your example IS NOT tyrrany by the minority.

An individual or group brought a suit against the religious nature of a city crest.

The citizens of the city for the most part like the crest as is.

The judge decides on the matter using the Constitution as a guide.

The majority support the Constitution even if they do not support the judges interpretation of it.

The judge is either elected directly or is an appointee of an elected official depending on the context.

The balance is that the majority (who for the sake of this discussion) disapprove of the decision will in theory take out their disapproval either upon the judge in the next election or the elected official who appointed him. If the grievence is bad enough they might start impeachment proceedings or a recall vote against the judge (again depending on the context). This has been done in the past.

The judges decision or interpretation of matters of Constitutional law cannot be construed as a tyrrany of the minority simpy because the the judge is excercising his powers granted by the majority.

JamiesanTGrauerwolf · Post by **JamiesanTGrauerwolf** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:58 am

One of these days I expect Rsak to say:

"Ever hear of Plato? Socrates? Aristotle? Morons!"

His posts always come across as Vicini-Like

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 10:02 am

You got a little Rsak on your shoe there, Jecks.

Post by **Ddrak** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 10:23 am

Rsak,

Nowhere did the minority enforce anything. Consitution - enacted by majority. Judge - elected (either directly or indirectly) by majority. This "majority" you speak of has neither replaced the constitution or the judge over the issue so your argument is BS.

I repeat: wtf?

Dd

Akhbarali · Post by **Akhbarali** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 10:48 am

Not only does he not understand what this conversation was about (fillibusters and their effect on the legislative process) but he also doesn't understand the very different role of the legistalture and judiciary in our system. Presumably he is discussing "legislating from the bench" and how that interferes with the "will of the majority". The problem is that has nothing to do with the current conversation as the role of the courts is completely different than the role of the legislature. Again since he swears it is not trolling there can only be one other conclusion as to why he is incapable of understanding what has been a relatively straightforward discussion up to this point.

/smacks self for responding to a Rsak post even in a second hand way.

Akhbar

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 12:33 pm

Jecks,

Don't get stuck on the term tyranny since it is a hyperbole as already pointed out. What is at question is having power over another group. In a true democracy there would never be a situation where the minority has more power then the majority. However we do not live under such a system and sometimes the minority is protected and given more power then the majority.

In the case under discussion the decision would have gone another way were a vote held. That is all the evidence needed to see that it is occuring.

Ddrak,

The minority has the power to change the system by using a legal suit and the decisions of a few individuals to force the majority to comply by making it a decision between their issue and the constitution.

If you do not see the power in that you are delusional.

Ackbar,

I do not need to talk about our current system since I am not attacking it. I simply stating that our system allows for the exercise of power by both the minority and the majority. At times the minority has more power then the majority.

In the case of filibusters the majority can decide to pass these judges through or not. The minority also has the power to grind it to a halt if they are willing to subject themselves to the actual process of a filibuster.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 12:56 pm

I would like to point out that I have no poo on my shoe.

Post by **Ddrak** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 1:24 pm

Rsak,

There is no power exercised that was not sourced from the majority. Constitution = majority. Judge = majority. Law = majority. Where's this "minority"? I don't see it. All you've managed to prove is the "majority" is schizophrenic, but that much is obvious.

Dd

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 1:35 pm

Ddrak,

The constituation was not passed by the majority of our current citizens which is why the majority/minority comparison is accurate. Your lovely statement of the obvious is quite nice but irrelevant since it is not in contention.

If the issue were put to a vote the minority would have lost, but instead it got its way counter to the beliefs of the majority.

Post by **Ddrak** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 1:50 pm

The constituation was not passed by the majority of our current citizens

...

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 1:52 pm

If the issue were put to a vote the minority would have lost, but instead it got its way counter to the beliefs of the majority.

So your angst is ue to the fact that we are a representitive republic instead of a democracy?

I suggest you get ahold of Cleo....have her get in contact with the founding fathers....so you can complain.....

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 2:01 pm

The constituation was not passed by the majority of our current citizens

That one boggled me too.....

Are you suggesting that we reratify the Constitution on an anual basis? Because as I recall it was ratified by the state legislatures of the exsisting states and each state allowed into the Union thereafter has ratified it soon after becomming a state......

Which means that the duly elected representitives of each state.....representing the majority of its citizens.....agreed with its content.

Akhbarali · Post by **Akhbarali** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 2:25 pm

Rsak wrote:Ddrak,

The constituation was not passed by the majority of our current citizens which is why the majority/minority comparison is accurate. Your lovely statement of the obvious is quite nice but irrelevant since it is not in contention.

I take it back, he is obviously trolling. Nobody is stupid enough to make this statement without including "hurr hurr" at the end of the sentence.

Akhbar