When Is Political Compromise Really Extortion and Bribery?
Judge H. Lee Sarokin
Retired in 1996 after 17 years on the federal bench
Posted: December 27, 2009 01:25 PM I am pleased that health care reform has been approved (although its final form is yet to be resolved). But the process has demonstrated that there are elected officials who have the power to veto legislation even before it is presented for a vote, insist upon amendments based upon personal or religious preferences or merely to gain special favor for the constituency which they represent. Surprisingly, none of these persons are the president of the United States, but rather they are senators reaping the benefit of the 60 vote cloture rule. Over the history of this country we have learned and accepted the proposition that in order for legislation to be enacted, compromises must be made to bring recalcitrant parties on board.
If the insurance industry offered Democrats huge campaign contributions to reject the health care bill, we would be outraged and call it "bribery," but when the Democrats themselves offer benefits for its support, we call it "compromise". What makes it particularly galling is when the benefits are conferred upon Sen. Ben Nelson, the Senate's most outspoken Democratic advocate against federal funding and insurance for abortions. His proposed abortion amendment discriminates against women. It is motivated by religious belief. It purports merely to continue the status quo -- an argument that probably was made to continue slavery, discrimination, segregation and denying women the right to vote.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/when-is-political-comprom_b_404322.html