You think adjourning the house and kicking everyone out to avoid a vote you don't want is without precedent? Were you even paying attention during the 109th Congress? (or the 108th, the 107th... etc... etc.)
An ultra partisan source from the other side isn't what I asked for. That's why I'm still waiting for a credible source.
The left wing site frames it as a way to curb rampant obstructionism. In many ways, I agree. The 110th Congress has had the most obstructionist minority party in the history of Congress. (seriously, it has.) Not only did the Republicans pull a lot of parliamentary maneuvers in the House, but in the Senate they not only broke the record for most filibusters in a single Congress, they DOUBLED the previous record. That's not okay.
I think (jesus... hope) we can all agree that a well functioning legislature gives the minority party a voice and the ability to affect legislation, while still allowing the majority party to advance their agenda. That really wasn't the case in the 110th Congress, and so some rule changes are probably needed.
What I want to hear is the practical application of these rule changes from someone who isn't a hysterical wingnut. This thread has just turned into a frenzied right wing circle jerk based on what barely amounts to an op-ed by someone from the "conservative underground". Sorry if I can't take that seriously.
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,251
- 1
- 61
Nope. The rules changes as proposed would facilitate exactly such a scenario. There's no point in stopping half-way on this. Take it to the end. Would this actually happen... who knows. But the fact that they want to open the door to make this possible is what counts. Why change the rules to make this possible if you don't ever intend to do it?
That isn't what I said. At their whim, Dems could boot the media out of committee chambers without cause. Tax increases, unpopular legislation... shoo. Go away. Come back later when we're 'debating' something popular.
Point is, if they change the rule, it removes the forced transparancy on the system and makes it voluntary. I don't want it voluntary. You shouldn't want it to be voluntary either.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Lets take the two ways the rules changes could be implemented issues side by side.
1. Let us concede, if it indeed becomes the way the new rules work, that Whoozeyerdaddy would be right in saying "Proposed bill goes to committee. The guy who wrote it tells the chairman what's in it. (Plus he's owed a favor) Nobody reads it. Hell, nobody else was in the committee for that matter. He holds proxy for all his party-mates. The chairman rubber-stamps it through committee where it goes to the floor."
This is indeed the way the GOP often proceeded in the house when they held the majority during the 2000-20006 time period. It was wrong then, and would be wrong on the part of the dems now.
2. If on the other hand, a bill is presented openly, everyone has a chance to read it and comment on it in committee and in public, and then debate and especially amendments are limited, the bill is not endlessly delayed, corrupt dealings on earmarks are reduced, and bills can't be delayed endlessly.
Which was what the last GOP congressional minority did, and it was likewise wrong.
We will see which of the two become the case with the new house rules, and we can't prejudge now until we see the results.
1. Let us concede, if it indeed becomes the way the new rules work, that Whoozeyerdaddy would be right in saying "Proposed bill goes to committee. The guy who wrote it tells the chairman what's in it. (Plus he's owed a favor) Nobody reads it. Hell, nobody else was in the committee for that matter. He holds proxy for all his party-mates. The chairman rubber-stamps it through committee where it goes to the floor."
This is indeed the way the GOP often proceeded in the house when they held the majority during the 2000-20006 time period. It was wrong then, and would be wrong on the part of the dems now.
2. If on the other hand, a bill is presented openly, everyone has a chance to read it and comment on it in committee and in public, and then debate and especially amendments are limited, the bill is not endlessly delayed, corrupt dealings on earmarks are reduced, and bills can't be delayed endlessly.
Which was what the last GOP congressional minority did, and it was likewise wrong.
We will see which of the two become the case with the new house rules, and we can't prejudge now until we see the results.
I am taking it to the logical conclusion. Filibuster is a legitimate minority tool to keep the majority from doing what it pleases. You wanting that tool to be taken away, what need is there for a minority party? Cut to the chase and outlaw that as well.
You realize that pretty much every other western democracy does not have the protections for the minority that we have, right? Most of the time the majority party or coalition gets to do whatever the hell it wants, the logic being 'they won the election, they run the show'. Why don't they outlaw opposition parties? Because the other parties are there if (when) the ruling party screws it up.
I'm not saying that's how we should do it here, but neutering minority parties' ability to affect legislation does not mean 'lets just have a one party state'.
Well of course not. That's the dance of two party politics. The party out of federal power furiously puts out declarations for the rights of states, the protection of the filibuster, and other minority rights. The party in power declares that 'elections have consequences', complains about the obstructionism of the minority party, and seeks to expand federal power.
Just look at the Republicans' statements on the filibuster a few years back during all that 'nuclear option' nonsense. Now look at what they say. I guess they have all had a stirring change of heart. The Democrats haven't been as horrendously hypocritical, as they haven't tried to eliminate the filibuster, but they suffer from some of the same problem.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
I don't mind this at all. Prevents pork from being added in the 'compromise' and lets a philosophy dominate. I agree with many left and right positions but I think they need to be all left or all right to suceed, not half baked attempts which congress is famous for. Get rid of filibuster while you're at it.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Again you show your ignorance regarding the filibuster and the "nuclear option".
Also, since when are liberals for the rights of states? What was the last thing they championed that would give power to states over the Feds?
No I don't, I already beat you into submission once about the issue, if you want to bring it up again... I'll smack you around some more. For the folks at home, CAD believes that the majority party limiting the rights of the minority isn't actually the majority limiting the rights of the minority so long as it's only about judges.
As for states rights issues, the Democrats specifically cited states rights issues as reasons to oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment that was championed by the Republicans, as a federalized solution to the gay marriage debate. Any other questions?
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
:laugh: I guess you truly are delusional. Just because YOU don't understand the nuclear option does not mean you smacked me around. You just failed to accept the realities of the situation.
:laugh: That's your example? Puhfugginleeze - it was a supposedly proposed Amendment. You do realize that the states do have a say in that right? So even IF a couple Dems tried to claim state's rights on this supposedly proposed Amendment doesn't make them champions of states rights when they are the minority like you claimed. BTW - incase you didn't "get it" - your example is lame and doesn't really even create a blip on the state's rights radar.
Real shocker here. CAD stupidly asks for an example of Democrats in the minority advocating for state's rights. He is shown an example of Democrats in the minority advocating for states rights (that took all of 5 seconds to find). Instead of admitting he was just shown up, he simply declares the example insufficient.
Bet nobody could have called that one, huh?
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
I didn't say it wasn't an example - I stated it was a lame example and doesn't exactly support your position. It also wasn't really a state's rights issue anyway since there was more to them opposing it that state's rights. The supposed state's rights objection looks more like an afterthought than a main objection - especially given the liberal's objection to states handling the question themselves. :laugh:
I could have called this one - yet another claim by a liberal shown to be faulty when looked into. Liberals for state's rights when in the minority? You really don't think anyone buys your BS do you?
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,563
- 9
- 81
Sometimes the compromise has given us the worst of both worlds. But a country can't swing wildly between philosophies that easily. If the Democrats suddenly have 100% control and eliminate all private health insurers, if their vision for UHC is a failure there is no going back. Compromise makes things harder but smooths out the bumps.
I never said... that you said it wasn't an example. I said that you claimed it was insufficient, which you did. This is because you are unable to admit that you're wrong.
You realize that your post only proves my point, right? Of course the Democrats don't buy into the states rights thing, that was the whole point of my original post, genius. The minority party uses states rights as a shield against majority federal power. The federal majority power tramples state's rights as these rights are a check on their own power. Thanks for the help!
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
So you admit your claim is false then? Just because your weak example got shot full of holes does not mean your initial claim was somehow suddenly true. Liberals have not been for state's rights in quite some time yet you tried to claim they were if they were in the minority. It's just not true.
senseamp
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,195
- 126
Filibuster is also not in the Constitution. It is also not a law. It is simply a parliamentary rule, a courtesy to the minority. The purpose of it is to have sufficient debate on issues before voting. If it is abused to block voting entirely, then it can and should be taken away. The Constitution does not give minority party a veto over legislation, and contrary to what some on the right, it's not just a piece of paper, or a living breathing document that you can interpret to give minority parties protections that are not there.
Of course my claim was not false you moron. The entire purpose of my post was that neither party was specifically for states rights, that they only supported them when in the minority because it was politically convenient. If you notice, the first paragraph where I stated my point, I didn't even use political party names, just 'in power' and 'out of power'. There was a good reason for that. Your mission is to figure out what that reason was.
If you understood the original post, or the purpose of the example, you would see that both strongly support my original point. The fact that you wrote a 'rebuttal' that only further reinforced my position shows that you understand neither. Don't you see that you're arguing for my side and then calling me an idiot for having it?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 11K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 8K
-
Facebook
Twitter