Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, filibustered in June to "successfully" prevent a voting outcome she disagreed with. I find myself wondering what has happened — or failed to happen — in our society such that it has become perfectly acceptable to not allow people we disagree with to talk. That's essentially what a filibuster is: impeding due process by failing to yield the floor or not allow others to talk.
You may say that what Sen. Davis did was perfectly legal (and common), and you'd be correct. But since when is law the only thing that rules us? Was not our country founded upon a higher moral path? When did it become OK to disallow those we disagree with to speak? Are not our laws merely the minimum ethical standard allowed by our society, written for the ethically clueless so that they will at least know the minimum standard to follow?
Doesn't the filibuster's censorship run counter to the principles of the Constitution guaranteeing due process and free speech?
What example do legislators set with the filibuster? What did Sen. Davis teach our children? Was it just about the issue of abortion or could there be something more, something higher, than this one issue at stake?
It breaks my heart to think that we seem to believe that minimum ethics are good enough as long as the individual gets his or her "way."
Timothy Frink
Nassau