Your 3/12 issue contained a letter from local leftist lemming Wayne Pearce titled "Compromise must be part of your game plan."

However, his idea of compromise for Democrat politicians in the Copper State seems to be: say whatever is necessary to get elected and then toe the party line. With a very broad brush he also paints Arizona as a "Jim Crow" state and a majority of elected Republicans as insurrectionists. These are hardly words of conciliation.

The main source of Mr. Pearce's palpitations is the fact that Senator Kyrsten Sinema, unlike many Democrats, does not support eliminating the Senate filibuster. Evidently, Senator Sinema has a better understanding of why the Senate is, and should be, very different from the House of Representatives where the majority party regularly lords over the minority without meaningful compromise.

Perhaps it is because the Senator better understands the importance of the filibuster as a tool in creating compromise in legislation. Maybe she better understands the imprudent precedent that than Majority Leader Harry Reid made in 2013 when he invoked the "nuclear option" on cloture which bit Democrats on the behind after the 2016 election. It could be all those things and many more but maybe the Senator just understands she was elected to represent people and not a party.

Mark Griego,



(3) comments


Welcome to the tyranny of the minority.


There is a very basic issue here which has plagued Americans throughout the generations, and that is the filibuster, which has deteriorated into an empowerment of just a single senator to control the actions of both houses. I assert that is too much power to place in the hands just one member of any party, and a direct perversion of the Constitution.

The Framers specified there would be only a few votes requiring a two-thirds majority for passage. Three were in the House: to override a presidential veto, expel a member, or approve a Constitutional amendment. The Senate has two more: to approve treaties or impeachment and removal. There are no constitutional mandates for any other super-majority votes.

The framers rejected all other provisions which could empower a few members to control, direct or obstruct the decisions of either house. The intent was simple majority rule by quorum, except for a few limited instances I have listed above. Every member of both houses was to represent the American people in the matter of conducting national business. Federalist Papers 22, 58 and 75 depict the convention's abhorrence of minority control or obstruction.

Does this mean the filibuster must be killed outright – no! In broader strokes, the framers, based on their fear of government, intended for the big things in government to be well considered and take place deliberately. They sought to cool the quickly--considered actions of the House (a very “open” body) with the greater deliberations of the Senate while preserving democratic rule. The degenerate policy of a super-majority for cloture is a belling-of-the-cat for purely political corruption of the notion of well-considered (not unlimited) deliberation. This means that the Senate must change its rules to place limits on debate while exempting legislation on matters of health, appointments, infrastructure, voting rights and education.

Obviously, all debate must be in-person speaking, and be limited solely to those matters under debate. Likewise, all bills must be reported out-of-committee in no more than 30 days, with exceptions for time-limited hearings, as well as submitted to the floor within ten days of receipt from the committee and voted on immediately. Amendments must be limited strictly to those matters which offer changes only to the substance of the bill, with the presiding officer deciding questions of parliamentary procedure. No more earmarking, and no more lobbying by for-profit entities.


Thanks for your cogent thoughts, Mark Griego. I hope that your trust in Sen. Sinema isn't misplaced; I can't quite figure her out.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.