Filibuster Controversy Evokes Strong Feelings

Re “Nuke It, Already,” editorial, May 18: Your editorial gives a clear rationale why the termination of the 2-century-old tradition of filibustering, allowing a minority to prevent the majority view to prevail, makes perfect sense. However, this potential change cannot stand alone: For this development to be a positive step rather than a wavering from democracy, then the era in which a potential dissenting view from your own party leaders is viewed as being just this side of treason must also come to an end.

Rick Siegel

Los Angeles

*

Because of the peculiar weighting of Senate seats, whereby small states get as many seats as large states, the Democratic minority in the Senate actually represents a greater number of voters than the Republican majority. Curious but true. Of course, there is no reason in George Bush’s America, where the media continuously yield to the sulky moods of a surprisingly unpopular president and abandon their responsibility to serve as a watchdog, for the will of the majority to prevail. What the hell are you people doing, endorsing the nuclear option? Why should not the voice of the minority be heard in this Dominionist pseudorepublic we are creating?

Michael G. Meyer

Washington

*

Did the editorial board actually give this serious thought? How is ending the filibuster in the best interest of Americans? The ability of the minority to prevent objectionable legislation, or nominations, from achieving passage should be inviolate. The founders were concerned about the tyranny of the majority, and that fear is no less relevant today.

Travis Snell

Austin, Texas