Originally posted by caltour:No. The judicial system was never designed to be a guarantor of democratic representation for the minority. It is a forum for testing the constitutionality of legislation, for enforcing laws (that were put into place by majority-elected legislators), and for resolving civil disputes. As I recall from law school, there is no cause of action for "political unfairness."
Political unfairness? What is meant by these words? Those words sound like someone who values safety (comfort) over liberty. The courts are definitely one of three federal branches that are part of the overall democratic system of gov't we have. They represent the appointed and generally more permanent positions in our gov'ts. They are absolutely a part of testing whether laws written by the legislative branch hold up to constitutionality, which is a part of our democratic process. In many instances in history, the "small guy" has found victory over the majority through representation in the courts.
Quote: The filibuster is widely recognized as an extremely limited and often ineffective antidote to majority domination in our system.
There are several instances where the filibuster, throughout history, has been successfully used by the minority party.
Quote: It is a very crude tool for obstruction, and not a true "seat at the table" of power. As a practical matter, it is rarely used, because not only does it require extraordinary committment and dedication of resources, it can be quickly ended by a supermajority vote. And recent attempts by the Republicans to kill it altogether reveal that it is a weak substitute for real power.
Just because the nuclear option is being considered does not mean it is proper or wise. The filibuster should be preserved as a method for the minority to express their views when necessary. I do not agree with the Republican's view on this issue.
Quote: Yes, a MAJORITY of votes were cast for those elected representatives (except for Bush in 2000, of course). How does this support your argument that minorities have real representation in our federal government?
Almost every single PAC and SIG is a minority from a statistical perspective when compared to the population as a whole. Unions for example, once comprised over 40% of the working population back in the 40's. Today, they comprise less than 13% of the work force, yet look at the political power still wielded by these organizations to this day.
Quote: If the "minority" of voters were united, they would likely be a majority, wouldn't they?
Possibly, depends on how much of the total percentage the minorities comprise of the whole. Were the various minorities to band together, in most cases they would become the majority. A good example of this is the combination of the "green party" base and the democratic base would most likely surpass the republican majority from a voting population/statistical perspective, though I can't say for certain since I've not looked at the numbers.
Quote: It is pretty rare for a candidate to win an absolute majority. Often the vote is split between several candidates, and the winner receives less than half of all the votes.
Agreed.
Quote: I'm not arguing that there are no groups that have some influence except for majority voters. If no "minority" groups had any influence at all, democracy would have failed long ago. Thanks for pointing out an example of a "minority" group that has managed to have some political success (not much, but some), but it truly is an exception and not the rule.
The majority of the most effective PAC's and SIG's represent minority groups when you get right down to it. List them out:
AFL/CIO unions NAACP AARP the list goes on
Quote: Where did you get this opinion? The megachurches have multi-million dollar budgets, and a call from the pulpit can readily raise more. They are a huge source of "soft" money and a major financial supporter of right-wing causes. I have never heard anyone deny this before.
Huge churches have large budgets but spend the majority of it on the infrastructure they support. I'm on the financial committee for my church which is by no means a megachurch, we see on average about 500 people between two different services each Sunday. Our annual budget is around 750k roughly. The majority of our annual budget goes toward two things, real estate and salaries/personnel expenses for our three pastors. Outside of that the next largest expenditure is toward ministries, most of which are for people outside of the U.S. I've personally seen the budgets for a few megachurches and their expenditures aren't a whole lot different. They are ministry focused just like my own church. I've never once heard of an alter call for money for anything politically related in my own church nor any of the megachurches, and I have several friends in California that are members of some 10-20k person megachurches. Like I said, the majority of funding for political representation goes to PAC's and SIG's such as James Dobson's Focus on the Family, Familylife, Gary Bauer's CWFPAC, etc. The largest donations to these Christian PAC/SIG's are in fact corporate donors believe it or not, followed by individual giving ala internet.
Love these kind of debates but man I'm tired. I don't think I've said well enough what I wanted to say here so I'll check back in tomorrow.
The courts are definitely one of three federal branches that are part of the overall democratic system of gov't we have. They represent the appointed and generally more permanent positions in our gov'ts. They are absolutely a part of testing whether laws written by the legislative branch hold up to constitutionality, which is a part of our democratic process. In many instances in history, the "small guy" has found victory over the majority through representation in the courts. 