Friday, May 27, 2005
On this day:

Majority Rule Unless We Disagree

Atleast that's how things go at the New York Times. Opinion Journal notes the Times's Janus-like approach to recent controversies: The President's Stem Cell Theology
Mr. Bush threatened this week to veto a modest research-expansion bill that was approved by the House and is likely to be passed by the Senate. The reason, he said, is that the measure would "take us across a critical ethical line" by encouraging the destruction of embryos from which the stem cells are extracted. Never mind that this particular ethical line looms large only for a narrow segment of the population. It is not deemed all that critical by most Americans or by most religious perspectives. Rather, the president's intransigence provided powerful proof of the dangers of letting one group's religious views dictate national policy.
Disarmament in the Senate
The pact they forged will preserve the minority's right to filibuster--block a bill or nomination unless a supermajority of 60 senators votes to proceed. . . . There is absolutely nothing unfair about allowing a minority that actually represents more American people to veto lifetime appointments of judges who are far outside the mainstream of American thinking.
Majority interests are apparently justified for use of embryonic stem cells (nevermind a May 24th poll that found 48% opposed federal funding of embryonic stem cell research or the practice altogether ), but the minority is suddenly all powerful when blocking Bush's judicial nominees? *** by Gary Varvel