Politics - From Thursday's New York Times opinion page (discussing the President's likely veto of embryo destroying stem cell research):
Mr. Bush threatened this week to veto a modest research-expansion bill that was approved by the House and is likely to be passed by the Senate. The reason, he said, is that the measure would "take us across a critical ethical line" by encouraging the destruction of embryos from which the stem cells are extracted. Never mind that this particular ethical line looms large only for a narrow segment of the population. It is not deemed all that critical by most Americans or by most religious perspectives. Rather, the president's intransigence provided powerful proof of the dangers of letting one group's religious views dictate national policy.
From Wednesday's New York Times opinion page (discussing the rights of the minority of senators to block votes on justices via the filibuster):
The pact they forged will preserve the minority's right to filibuster--block a bill or nomination unless a supermajority of 60 senators votes to proceed. . . . There is absolutely nothing unfair about allowing a minority that actually represents more American people to veto lifetime appointments of judges who are far outside the mainstream of American thinking.
I'm trying to figure out their position: Are minorities of representatives supposed to be able to hold up legislation or not? Is it noble for the lesser voice to stop a law or not? When President Bush promises a veto, they say, “hey! get with the program! Your position is only held by folks with 'deeply held beliefs'!!” When it's judicial nominees, there's hand wringing about the “tyranny of the majority!”