Media bias or plain falsehood - you decide.
"In fact, as the rhetoric suggested, the stakes were far broader, with Republicans maneuvering to strip Democrats of their right to filibuster and thus block current and future nominees to the appeals court and Supreme Court." - from the Associated Press' account of the deal reached in the Senate this evening.
Is that a constitutional right or a G-d given right?
Senators Avert Showdown Over Filibusters
1 comment:
Neither bias nor falsehood, but an accurate representation of the situation.
According to Mirriam Webster, a right is "something that one has a just claim to". The legal definition of a right, according to law.com is "an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal."
G-d (Moral / Natural Rights) and the Constitution (Absolute, Guaranteed Rights) are not the only source of rights, nor do all rights convey absolute authority. As a person, one may have rights granted by any federal, state or city legislative body. One may have rights and entitlements granted by a signed contract agreement or by verbal agreement.
The filibuster is established in the Senate by the rules under which the body operates and it's also established under precedent. Therefore, the minority party has a right to filibuster. In the future, the rules may be changed so that it is no longer their right to do so, but right now, the rules say they do.
So, as far as I can tell, there's no media bias in those statements you quoted. :-)
I posted a little more in my response to you on my LJ.
Jon
Post a Comment