Democracy Does Not Mean Majority Rule
Re “McCain Sees ‘Slippery Slope’ in Filibuster Ban,” April 11: I was shocked to read that Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) considers the elimination of the filibuster for judicial nominations as simply an act of “restoring 200 years of Senate tradition in majority rule.”
Cornyn is playing on the impression of many who think “democracy” means majority rule. It does not.
Thank God we have never been a country set by the whim -- and tyranny -- of majority rule unless and until said rule is embodied in statutes passed by both houses of Congress, which then must pass constitutional muster via judicial review.
To talk about our “tradition in majority rule” is at best naive and at worst manipulative.
Our system is so much more complex and rich than that. Its balance of powers was designed by the framers of the Constitution for one fundamental purpose -- to prevent the majority from ruling absolutely.
That is the beauty of it, the protection embodied in it, and the very reason it has survived these same attacks for more than 200 years.
Allen Scott
Palm Springs
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
