Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Two Papers in One!

The Washington Post:

Columnist E.J. Dionne, March 22, 2005:
If the Republicans pushing against the filibuster love majority rule so much, they should propose getting rid of the Senate altogether. But doing so would mean acknowledging what's really going on here: regime change disguised as a narrow rules fight. We could choose to institute a British-style parliamentary system in which majorities get almost everything they want. But advocates of such a radical departure should be honest enough to propose amending the Constitution first.
Columnist E.J. Dionne, March 4, 2010:
[T]he Founders said nothing in the Constitution about the filibuster, let alone "reconciliation." Judging from what they put in the actual document, the Founders would be appalled at the idea that every major bill should need the votes of three-fifths of the Senate to pass.

The New York Times:

Reporter John Broder's article "Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate," March 2, 2010, paragraph 17:
The battle is asymmetric, in the sense that scientists feel compelled to support their findings with careful observation and replicable analysis, while their critics are free to make sweeping statements condemning their work as fraudulent.
Same article, paragraph 1:
For months, climate scientists have taken a vicious beating in the media and on the Internet, accused of hiding data, covering up errors and suppressing alternate views. Their response until now has been largely to assert the legitimacy of the vast body of climate science and to mock their critics as cranks and know-nothings.
Not like this is unusual in the biased liberal media.

(via Best of the Web, twice)


Lame-R said...

I love when you make these bozos eat their own words!

OBloodyHell said...

I disagree with the assertion that a major bill should not need the votes of 3/5ths of the senate. It's clear that they sought to make the passage of laws difficult. In that same spirit, major, sweeping changes to the Way Things Work certainly SHOULD command widespread support. This assertion is backed up by the complexity and difficulty of amending the Constitution, which is the hardest of all.

Carl said...

Lame-R: I never tire of it.

OBH: Agreed.