Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bridge Player who wrote (104826)	3/21/2005 1:16:39 PM
From: Bridge Player	Respond to of 793801

I received a reply from the NYT public editor re: the two editorials on use of filibusters on judgeship appointments, posted here by Tom Clarke. In his response he includes an email from Senator Cornyn of Texas. Dear Mr. -----, How do I defend the indefensible? I don't. The editorial board makes its own bed, and you and every other reader have the right to hold it responsible for what it says. I'm told an editorial that will address the apparent inconsistency is forthcoming; you and I can each decide whether the explanation has merit. I've attached, below, a letter to the editor on this subject from Sen. Cornyn of Texas. Yours sincerely, Daniel Okrent Public Editor To the Editor: 'The Senate on the Brink' (editorial, March 6) supports the 'historic role of the filibuster,' which is a curious position for a newspaper that 10 years ago said filibusters were 'the tool of the sore loser' and should be eliminated ('Time to Retire the Filibuster,' editorial, Jan. 1, 1995). Federal judicial appointments have certainly been controversial, but surely all Americans can agree that the rules for confirming judges should be the same regardless of which party has a majority. Now you praise the filibuster as a 'time-honored Senate procedure.' In 1995, when Bill Clinton was president, you called it 'an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose.' You disparage the Republicans' view that 51 votes should be enough for judicial confirmation. Yet the 51-vote rule is a consistent Senate tradition. By calling for an end to filibusters, the Senate is simply contemplating restoring its traditions by traditional methods you disparage as 'nuclear,' even though they were once endorsed by such leading Democrats as Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Charles E. Schumer and Robert C. Byrd. John Cornyn U.S. Senator from Texas At 04:38 PM 3/18/2005, you wrote: Dear Mr. Okrent: I thought you would be interested in comparing these two editorials. Sincerely, ------. [followed by the text of the two editorials]