The Anti-Cretin Rule

Related Link » The Filibuster and Supermajorities-Becker
“Although the American Constitution does not provide for the filibuster, the founders of this country were very much concerned about protecting the rights of minorities. The checks and balances between the Congress, President, and Judiciary built into the Constitution were designed to make it difficult to pass legislation that infringed on the rights of important minorities. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to solidify this protection. [...] So my conclusion is that the supermajority requirement of invoking closure to cut off Senate debate is useful protection not only to minorities, but also to overly hasty passage of controversial legislation. People on all positions will sometimes be frustrated by the need to have such a supermajority, but in the long run most of the time they will be happy that such rules are in effect.”
— Gary Becker, 03/07/2010

Related Link » Should the Senate Abolish the Filibuster? Posner
“The filibuster, especially in its present streamlined form, creates a supermajority requirement to enact federal legislation. Supermajoritarianism is not unknown to the U.S. Constitution, which requires a two-thirds majority to overcome a presidential veto and a two-thirds vote to send a constitutional amendment to the states for ratification and three-fourths of the states must vote to ratify for the amendment to be adopted. [...] The theory of American government is representative rather than direct democracy [...], and the representative is intended to season his constituents’ opinions with his own judgment rather than act simply as a transmission belt. But the health care program has been kicking around in Congress for a year, and the inability of its supporters to convince the public of the program’s wisdom, coupled with the program’s enormous cost and its potentially disruptive consequences for the health care industry [...], may make people question the democratic legitimacy of enacting the program with just a simple majority in the House and Senate.”
— Richard Posner, 03/07/2010

It is not my intention to belabor the belabored. There are well-established reasons for the Senate's filibuster rule; both parties have relied on it from time to time; and majorities from both parties have railed against it whenever it frustrated their partisan intentions, which is the anti-cretin rule's raison d'être.

Nor do I wish to revisit the arguments for and against Obamacare, which have already been revisited ad nauseam. None of these arguments can ever be resolved, because the proponents of the opposing views are so thoroughly invested politically, emotionally, and, dare I say it, with religious fervor.

I merely wish to state two obvious points:

1. Legislation exceeding two thousand pages of intricate legal provisions can not possibly be comprehended by rational beings, much less can its enormous consequences be anticipated.
2. Nancy Pelosi is a cretin.

Running Ruining It

Post #1,149 The Anti-Cretin Rule