While no one should be surprised these days by the Lincoln JournalStar’s unnatural and deeply disturbing affection for liberal miscreancy, this time Dame LJS has bent so far to the left she can see up her own skirts. An editorial dated November 29, 2015 lauds none other than Kearney’s own wolfish/sheepish state senator – the redoubtable Galen Hadley – for coming up with (their words) “a reasonable plan for trimming the impact of filibusters on the Legislature.” And, as current Speaker of the Unicameral, our doughty senator has vowed to “use his authority” to accomplish his ends – in other words he intends nothing less than unilateral truncation of opposing viewpoints.
The idea, allegedly conceived by RINO-in-chief Hadley, calls for “a cloture motion to shut off debate after six hours, rather than the eight hours that has traditionally been allowed.” Seems those nasty conservatives have managed to extinguish lots of collectivist-inspired legislation with that extra two hours of debate. Among those bills smothered in their cribs are such delightful neo-marxist offerings as “repeal of the death penalty, allowing immigrants brought to the United States as children to get driver’s licenses, wind energy, returning Nebraska to a winner-take-all system for awarding electoral votes, and requiring voters to present identification …” Who knew that two hours could be that lethal? One wonders if Hadley et al, including the JournalStar, ever considered the possibility that such legislation as that mentioned above is simply, well , remarkably bad policy … and was opposed by the wielders of the filibuster (“filibusterers?”) on reasonable grounds. No – probably not …
Hadley may be a lot of things, but stoopid ain’t one of ‘em. The Unicameral liberal class (of which Hadley is a card-carrying, dues-paying, T-shirt wearing member) understands fully that one of the most effective ways to get their agenda through an already structurally crippled legislative body such as the Unicameral is to limit substantive discussion and debate to the fullest possible extent – and his latest brainstorm, with apologies to Pink Floyd, is just another brick in that inexorable progressive wall.
The Founders, especially Madison and Hamilton in The Federalist, went to considerable lengths to explain the virtues of extended debate and a resultant thorough winnowing of proposed legislation, arguing that multiplying the diversity of interests as well as encouraging lengthy discussion is the key to mitigating potentially dangerous majority factions. Yet here stands Senator Hadley attempting to short-circuit an already dysfunctional legislative process by promising parliamentary chicanery to limit deliberation that has been demonstrably effective in thwarting many of the liberals’ perverse initiatives.
And the P Street Pixie Press is effusively onboard, supporting not only Hadley’s nefarious scheme but promoting one of their own. Quoting from the editorial:
“The editorial board is on record in favor of a more drastic reform to lower the number of votes required to end a filibuster from 33 to 30 … In the view of the board, a 30-vote requirement is sufficient to protect the ability of minority to restrain the majority from passing extreme measures.”
Good to know the LJS mavens are looking out for the interests of the poor and down-trodden.
From Federalist 10:
“As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government …the majority … must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control….”
Simply put, what Madison is saying is, given man’s natural tendency toward self-aggrandizement, we must depend in large part on structural/organizational checks to prevent legislative cozening – and that surely includes ample discussion/disputation over any proposed laws. I would expect both politicians and newspapers to recognize and honor that simple principle.