3 ms·
The problem with saying that one side 'needed' to shut out the other, is that it assumes the filibustering party was wrong. It is impossible to differentiate (i
by nickff 10y ago
The problem with saying that one side 'needed' to shut out the other, is that it assumes the filibustering party was wrong. It is impossible to differentiate (in a viewpoint-neutral way) who was being 'difficult', or saying 'my way or the highway'.
Another example is how the Republicans keep passing budgets, and the President keeps veto-ing them; who is in the wrong here? What about when Obama proposes budgets that the Republicans refuse to pass? You cannot make a viewpoint-neutral assessment of who (if anyone) is wrong.
If I ask you for something, and you say 'no', it is impossible to determine who was being unreasonable without taking a view on the substance of the matter, even if you assume that some action is necessary.
- CocaKoala 10y agoBut government requires compromise, and when you say "No" then you're refusing to compromise. I understand that sometimes there are some things that a party might refuse to compromise on, and I believe that's a valid use of the filibuster to block progress. Are you trying to tell me that every single filibuster from 2009 and 2010 was because the issue was so deeply offensive to the Republicans and everything they stand for as a party and an ideological mindset that compromise was impossible? It might not be possible to make a viewpoint-neutral assessment of any particular issue, but I believe it is possible to make a viewpoint-neutral assessment of the criticality of a particular issue. When your job is to compromise and you agree a priori that whatever is suggested, you will refuse to consider, I think that's a clear abuse of your ability to say "No", even without needing to make a value judgement on any particular "No" that was said.