Friday, May 13, 2005

Fillibusters and Nuclear Options

Krauthammer has an interesting take on the Senate judicial battles. I agree with him, and would like to add that the whole mess seems to be getting worse as tempers rise.
One interesting aspect is the use of the term "nuclear option." As a retired servant in uniform to our great country, and a devout student of the arts and sciences of war, the use of nukes at any time is usually counterproductive.
Mutual Assured Destruction was the most immoral policy that mankind had ever dreamed up. It basically said that while we know that we are going to die, so are you. It accomplished no legitimate military objectives, and did not reduce or minimize the harm to civilians. In fact, due to its design, it had to attack civilians. A 10 Megaton warhead could destroy a city, but was inappropriate for taking on a company sized element. Besides, cities don't move. Soldiers do.
Now the term is invoked by teh Democrats as being an affront to democracy. What a joke. In a democracy, aren't you supposed to be allowed to vote? Sen. Reid says that the filibuster is used to protect the rights of the minority. In a democracy, I always thought that the minority is to be respected, and protected, but isn't the flip side of the bargain that the minority has to respect the wishes of the majority? The use of the filibuster in these cases is only because the judges will probably be confirmed by a majority of the Senate. This is not protection of the minority. It is the tyrannhy of the minority.
To fight this one out, as the democrats seem to be doing, will only result in their assured destruction. Rather than acting responsibly, and voting yea or nay, they have changed the rules to say that the minority can obstruct the decisions of the majority. If they think about this for a minute, they have to realize that someday they will be in the majority, and a minority of Republicans will use their arguments against the assignment of judges.
It would not be very pleasant to be hoisted on your own petard.

No comments: