k wrote:

It is hard enough to run the hurdles posed by a bicameral system where, unlike many countries around the world, each House has an absolute veto on the other. It is, I believe, indefensible to give a single individual, who has no conceivable claim to greater legitimacy than the collective House and Senate, the power to set aside their expressed political judgment.

Oh, give me a break. THIS is EXACTLY the same as all the Republican bitching about filibusters from two years ago. The U.S. President has always had the power to veto laws for whatever reason. Thats hows things have always worked. And now all of a sudden its some great affront to Democracy when it means you don't get your way?! You're damn right it's counter-majoritarian! The fact that either party gets 51% of the vote, particularly in a single election, is not, in fact, carte blanche to ram through your partisan agenda. These checks and balances exist to prevent that very thing, and in recent years they have worked exactly as they should. You can override a veto. If the government isn't getting things done its because the parties are too busy following the radicals at their fringes than working together on reasonable solutions that have broad support.

RE: Balkinization