Fight over Senate filibuster
A long time ago in a statehouse far, far away I played the same game U.S. Senate Republicans are playing with judicial nominees. It was 1978 and, as a senior in high school, I attended the Youth In Government mock legislature at the Capitol to learn about the legislative process.
Some students took it very seriously, introducing bills to alleviate poverty or protect civil rights. To me, observing the process was the goal, so I introduced a bill to make “Star Wars” Colorado’s official state movie. My bill was assigned to committee and immediately attacked and derided as mocking the importance of the mock legislature.
On the brink of having it killed, I argued that it wasn’t the committee’s role to pass judgment on the validity of a bill, but merely to validate its procedural fitness for the full Senate to consider (an argument that essentially renders committees pointless). To my amazement, I persuaded them to pass it out of committee; then I avoided the full ridicule of the Senate by arguing to kill it on the floor.
Like my “Star Wars” bill, the GOP argues that judicial nominees should have a straight up-or-down vote on the Senate floor as a measure of their fitness for office and that obstructions to such a vote (filibusters) should be eliminated. When one party has control of committees as well as a firm majority on the floor, any such idiocy (e.g., “Star Wars” as the official state movie) can become law. The filibuster rule is the only way for a minority party to register its objections to nominees and policies it believes are beyond mainstream thinking.
The Democrats have already approved 95 percent of President Bush’s judicial nominees, arguing that the remaining 10 nominees are ideologues unfit for lifetime appointments. If the press would turn its spotlight on the qualifications of these remaining nominees rather than the catfight between the parties, the public would gain a better understanding of why the GOP has to “go nuclear” in order to blast them through the confirmation process.
John Wilkens, Boulder
…
The country would be better off if the Senate’s ability to filibuster was left in place. Ironically, President Bush might be better off, too.
Why? There are at least three ways that Bush benefits when Democrats use the filibuster to block one of his nominees:
What if the Senate does vote to eliminate the ability to filibuster judicial nominees? True, it does make the approval of the last handful of Bush nominees much more likely. But it also takes the Democrats out of the equation. What if a group of moderate Republicans decide to oppose any one of Bush’s choices? Then they become the target of the right wing’s ire instead of the Democrats, a potentially divisive issue for the Republican Party.
Finally, if filibusters are eliminated, the expectations of the religious right will be sky-high. Who do they then blame when any future judicial decision doesn’t go their way?
A majority of federal judges currently on the bench has been selected by Republican presidents, including more than 200 of Bush’s previous picks. So there already is a large pool of conservative justices that Bush can choose from when a spot on the Supreme Court becomes open.
Does the Bush administration really think that adding another seven to this total is worth the negatives that come with it?
Gary Bates, Boulder
State’s failing computer welfare benefits system
Re: “Blame aplenty in benefits mess; Counties and state played roles in debacle,” May 15 news story.
The Sunday Post’s front-page headline got it wrong, making it seem like county government was a primary entity responsible for the Colorado Benefits Management System disaster.
The state’s new $200 million computer system was foisted on the counties against their will. This was a mandate the counties protested against – to no avail. The state insisted all counties convert to this system, which is more complicated, takes more staff time, creates more paperwork, and has already resulted in millions in overpayments to welfare recipients (yes, millions). No wonder some counties dragged their feet in converting over.
So, shame on The Post for trying to pin the blame on counties for this debacle. San Miguel County tried to say no. Our social services director repeatedly tried to tell the state it was a bad idea, it wasn’t going to work, and it would cost more while doing less. But the state’s executive branch refused to listen.
Make no mistake. This is the state’s administrative boondoggle, with a paper trail leading directly back to the governor’s door.
Art Goodtimes, Norwood
The writer is chair of the San Miguel County Board of Commissioners.
…
I doubt the Colorado Benefits Management System is very different from other large government systems that have to implement complex legislation (such as our tax systems). Such complexity is all directly attributable to the legislators who dreamed up and wrote the rules in the first place. They should look in the mirror when asking why these systems are so complex.
Ian Brogden, Superior
…
Re: “Computer benefits system ticks off cancer survivor,” May 16 news story.
Last Monday’s Post had a very disturbing story about a lady being denied much-needed medical assistance because of the Colorado Benefits Management System, which was installed in September of last year and still is not functioning properly.
The continuing problem with distribution of food stamps is a disgrace.
A suggestion for Gov. Bill Owens: Empanel a group of 15- and 16- year-olds to test any new computer systems before implementing them. This is getting to be ridiculous.
Al Sanford, Federal Heights
Support for nuclear energy
Re: “Nuclear power gains backing of foes,” May 15 news story.
These people who call themselves environmentalists and yet advocate a switch to nuclear power as a cure for global warming can just call themselves something else from now on. The fact is that the use of fossil fuels is self-limiting: We will run out (pretty soon, actually), and the burning of fossil fuels will then no longer be the cause of global warming. Nuclear waste, on the other hand, lasts tens of thousands of years, directly destroys life, causes cancer, damages DNA and cannot be either safely contained, eliminated or recycled. It just keeps piling up and contaminating everything in its area. Take a look at Russia’s rate of childhood leukemia since Chernobyl. I’d rather do anything than bring children into a world where they die before growing up.
Right now, we should institute an aggressive conservation program on petroleum products to give us a little more time to develop our alternative energy sources: wind, water, sun.
Oh, and here’s another easy suggestion: Our need for energy rises in direct proportion to our population. How about distributing information on birth control and family planning to all the nations of the world? Remember ZPG (Zero Population Growth)? Now that’s environmentalism!
Susan Williams, Lakewood
Why preschoolers are expelled more often than older schoolchildren
Re: “Preschool expulsions raise concern,” May 17 news story.
It was interesting to read about the fact that preschool kids – mostly boys, by the way – are three times as likely to get kicked out of school than the students at the middle school and high school down the street from me. And I think I know at least something about why: Middle and high school students have had more training in the three rules of school, rules that are consistent from preschool through graduate school, no matter where you go. Those rules are: sit down, be quiet, and do your work.
In order to kick really little kids out of school, they need to transgress one or more of the three rules on a somewhat regular basis and pretty much mess with the idea that preschool is some kind of legitimate environment for small human beings to be in. The idea of preschool comes with many assumptions about the species, development, families and an environment that nurtures small, absorbent and mostly trusting children. Further, most of those assumptions are imbued with a sense of rightness because we accept the environment of preschool (and all schools, by extension) as a natural, inevitable, blessed environment for children.
I’m neither an anthropologist nor a historian, but to assume that the environment of preschool or any school is a natural state of affairs in the history of humankind rather than a social arrangement for any number of reasons seems, on the face of it, absurd. To make a case for the naturalness of 3-year-olds being required to follow those three rules seems to fly in the face of more than 4 million years of what we consider “human history.”
Middle and high school students have had many more years of getting-with-the-program than those rugrats in preschool. The fact of the matter is that our society has decided that preschool environments are legitimate, somewhat natural and blessed places for little kids to spend their days in.
Rocky Hill, Denver
Can state’s right reuinite?
Re: “Can the right reunite?” May 15 John Andrews column.
We’d better hope that the right won’t unite. Flip over the coin of the core beliefs articulated by the recently formed Republican Study Committee of Colorado (RSCC) and you discover an exclusionary, narrow and elitist set of core beliefs.
Limited government, for instance, in the conservative mind is one that excludes responsiveness to any but commercial interests. Also, you’d better believe the RSCC’s embrace of “American moral tradition” excludes progressive morality.
You think the RSCC respects and supports individual liberty and personal responsibility like it claims? Just try joining a teachers union or favoring (what the conservatives call) a welfare state, based on your own beliefs about responsibility and conscience, and see how much respect you get for your exercise of your individual liberty. Conservatives are in favor of choice to the extent that everyone else makes choices that they approve of; and every one of these “principles” bears the unstated assumption that conservatives are exclusively making the choices involved in their application.
Steve McKinney, Lakewood
…
I never really thought about a flavor for John Andrews. But after reading the former Colorado Senate president’s rant about reuniting the right, I was compelled to answer his question: “Which flavor is Andrews?” Definitely bananas! That this ineffective former Senate-leader-cum-pundit tries to give credit for all that is great and good to a fantasy “great coalition” of right wingers, and that he considers anyone of any reasonable political opinion other than his own a “foe of liberty,” shows how truly self-absorbed and deluded Andrews is.
Matt DeNero, Centennial
Fixing crumbling schools
Re: “Crumbling schools,” May 8 Perspective article.
It’s sad that so many school buildings across Colorado are falling into disrepair because the money to maintain them is scarce. A bright spot, however, is that the State Historical Fund is providing grants to many historic schools in Colorado to help rehabilitate these structures and restore their usefulness as public buildings people can be proud of.
State Historical Fund grants, paid for by tax revenues on limited-stakes gaming, have helped stabilize, repair and restore more than 100 historic schools (50 years or older) since 1993. Many have remained in use as schools or school administration buildings.
Dora Moore School in Denver, Ault High School in Weld County and Durango High School in La Plata County are among the historic schools enjoying new life, thanks to local communities and assistance from the State Historical Fund.
Preserving these historic schools builds pride and a sense of place in communities. It also makes good economic sense, as retrofitting an old school doesn’t necessarily cost more than building a new one. Additionally, rehabilitated historic schools can be made energy-efficient and reuse precious resources that would otherwise end up in landfills.
Considering historic preservation grants broadens the options of Colorado school districts as they grapple with maintaining their crumbling schools.
Alyson McGee, Denver
The writer is public outreach coordinator for the State Historical Fund.
Monument to MLK and Emmett Till
Re: “Repaired statue renews legacy of rights battles,” May 15 news story.
The erection of Ed Rose’s statue of Martin Luther King Jr. and Emmett Till in Denver’s City Park was special for me, then relatively new to Denver. In 1955, I was pastor of an interracial church in Chicago, which a decade later became the headquarters for King’s Chicago campaign. I was among the 50,000 who filed past Till’s casket in an outpouring of grief and outrage after his lynching, and was honored to be present when my seminary, Chicago Theological Seminary, became the first to award an honorary degree to Dr. King.
Gathering at the statue each year at the start of the MLK Marade felt deeply appropriate. I therefore had mixed feelings when it was replaced by Ed Dwight’s magnificent new structure tracing the roots of Dr. King’s faith and stance, and was delighted that the original statute had been offered a home in Pueblo. The article in last Sunday’s Post about its defacement freshly reminds us that racial hatred is still present among us. Our gratitude goes out to those who have lovingly restored the statue. I pray that we will be inspired to work yet more diligently for the fulfillment of Dr. King’s dream.
Edward A. Hawley, Denver
TO THE POINT: Short takes from readers
Our current immigration system hardly serves anyone except those who would exploit undocumented persons. The recent McCain-Kennedy proposal would help resolve the issue of the 8 million to 12 million undocumented persons currently in the United States. It also deals with future immigration in a rational way.
Lisa Schechtman, Boulder
Now that Newsweek has retracted its story on Koran desecration and apologized for the 16 Afghan deaths that resulted, isn’t it time for George W. Bush to retract his story on WMDs in Iraq and apologize for the American and Iraqi deaths that resulted?
Thomas E. Glatzel, Fort Collins
After all the photographs and documented evidence of the humiliation and horror inflicted on Muslim detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo, why does anyone think our troops are too sensitive to throw a copy of the Koran in a toilet?
Paul Menger, Franktown
So, the newest military base closure will save $49 billion over 20 years. Great! But wait, haven’t we spent $300 billion in two years on wars? Save $49 billion, 20 years; spend $300 billion, two years. Yes, that sounds about right for our Department of Defense.
David Steiner, Thornton
With Donald Rumsfeld’s restructuring of the military and closure of bases, I ask citizens to keep in mind that their economic sacrifices are a given for the war given us. So, know it but don’t gripe, our soldiers’ take a bullet, while you have only to bite. The war on terror will afford every citizen the equal opportunity to be cannon fodder.
Lee Burkins, Montrose
To have your comments printed in To the Point, please send letters of no more than 40 words to openforum@denverpost.com (no attachments, please) or 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202. Writers are limited to one letter per month.
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202 or PO Box 1709, Denver, 80201
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
