Democrats are calling for radical changes following the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision not to stop Texas’s anti-abortion Heartbeat Act from going into effect.
Over the weekend, for example, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) spent some time arguing that the Senate filibuster ought to be abolished so that the Democrats can put pro-abortion laws on the books.
Klobuchar made her case for ending the Senate filibuster, which essentially makes it so that 60 votes are needed to pass a piece of legislation through the Senate, during an appearance Sunday on CNN.
“My solution to this, which is my solution for voting rights and so many other things, including climate change, where one side of the country is in flames, the other side of the country is flooded with people dying submerged in their cars, I believe we should abolish the filibuster,” Klobuchar said.
“I do not believe an archaic rule should be used to allow us to put our heads in the sand, to use justice Sotomayor’s words, to put our heads in the sand and not take action on the important issues, the challenges that are facing our country right now, now and over the next years,” Klobuchar continued. “We just will get nowhere if we keep this filibuster in place.”
What Klobuchar says has truth in it: the radical Democrats “will get nowhere” with the filibuster in place, and that’s the only reason why she wants to get rid of it – If the Democrats were not in control of Congress right now, Klobuchar would be singing a different tune. The point of the filibuster is to prevent narrow majorities, like the current one the Democrats have in the Senate, from imposing their views on everyone. It does so by requiring the majority party to compromise with a small number of individuals from the minority party.
Not only should the filibuster not be abolished, but many would argue that the solution to the problem stated by Klobuchar is federalism, that is, allowing these hot button issues to be decided at the state level. This best ensures that the people of a particular state have their views represented by their government. Klobuchar’s one-size-fits-all approach, which she wants to tyrannical force on America using her small majority, only leads to problems.
“Who gets a lifetime appointment or job security for anything?”
While Klobuchar was arguing in favor of ending the filibuster, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) made the case that term limits ought to be imposed on Supreme Court justices.
“Why should anyone have lifetime appointments to any job?” Hirono asked during an appearance Monday on MSNBC. “Therefore as part of the hearing on the shadow docket, I think there will be calls for term limits on the Supreme Court.”
“Who gets a lifetime appointment or job security for anything? Why should the court be exempted? That’s been my view for a while,” Hirono concluded.
It is unclear whether Hirono is feigning ignorance as a rhetorical strategy or whether she really does not know the answer to her own question. As a U.S. Senator, of course, she should, as the founding fathers quite clearly articulated the reason for justices not having term limits. The idea was to encourage judicial impartiality by making it so that a justice doesn’t have to worry about getting reelected or about acquiring a job after his or her stint on the Supreme Court.
Note that neither Klobuchar nor Hirono addressed the merits of the things they want to destroy – they never do. Hirono didn’t even make an argument in favor of what she wants – she only asked a question that she assumes everyone will have the same answer to. These are just the two latest examples of the Democrats trying to tear the government down, while ignoring the consequences, in order to get their own way.