In the opinion commentary “The Coming Mess” by Quinn Brady in the May 13 edition of New Times, the author begins by describing how the filibuster rule in the United States Senate is so horrible in that it denies the majority party in the Senate, the Democrats/liberals, from controlling all legislation. The author seems to disregard that in the previous legislative sessions when the Democrats/liberals were in the minority they exercised the filibuster about 300 times in an attempt to kill or delay legislation they did not like.
Then in the second paragraph and in the remainder of the article, the author proceeds to argue that the majority party, the Republicans/conservatives, on the SLO County Board of Supervisors should not be able to control the legislation, but should somehow allow the minority a more significant role on the Board of Supervisors.
Does Quinn Brady realize that the article contradicts itself? I presume that in the author’s mind it all depends on whose goose is being gored.
Ron Smith
Paso Robles
This article appears in Pride 2021.
I agree with Mr. Smith’s conclusion, but I am afraid that he up mixed his metaphors. I believe what he meant to say is that it depends upon ” whose ox is being goosed”.
Quin Bradley has her head way up her lefty ass
Majority rule is two wolves agreeing to eat one fox.
The bare majority should not be able to force everyone to act or live or work as they [51 out of 100] wish.
Requiring a super – 2/3 or 3/4 – would protect the minority and ensure less bad legislation is passed. It would also end the shift between one group or the other according to the moods [whims] of the voters at any election.