Iowa Democrats Flee in Protest

[davmat787]

Personally I think that is just the way the politicians want it. The more we argue with each other, especially over the trivial shit or the shit that isn't changable, the less we pay attention to the stuff they are actually doing as well as helping keep them in power.

Agreed, and I have stated the same sentiment here many times. What a boon it must be for elected officials that the populace bickers over stupid partisan shit.

 

[sportage]

Let us understand this. IA republicans are frickin nutz. Period.
Bill after bill from the rep controlled house, since they took charge in 2010, has had nothing to do with jobs or helping the people. The very thing they campaigned on. Every bill introduced by house reps has been total nonsense. Stuff like allowing any public business to refuse to do business with anyone "they" perceived as gay. Bills destroying unions. Bills forcing single mothers to have drug tests because as we all know, all single mothers are on drugs. If you can think up or make up the wildest bill you can imagine, the IA house republicans probably tried to pass it.
In some cases, to flee is the only option to save the good citizens from the frickin nutz.

 

[soundforbjt]

I diots
O ut
W andering
A round

 

[Jhhnn]

Meh. By Iowa Repubs' own admission, they staged an ambush, changed the agenda at the last minute. Dems weren't prepared for that, withdrew for 6 hours, and returned after reaching consensus.

The outrageous part was the ambush, not that our resident right wing outrage junkies would notice that- they got their dose of faux outrage, & that's all that matters.

Expect a lot more of it in the run-up to the election.

 

[fskimospy]

I think the two are sufficiently different and can thus be distinguished one from the other.

Yes, the filibuster rules were originally established to permit each an opportunity to debate as they wanted so that they may sway their fellow Senators. However, that soon became 'abused' and has long been seen as a rule disconnected from mere debate. Seems to me it long ago became a defacto requirement that bills in the Senate required a 60% majority for passage. (Technically, we're conflating "filibuster" And "cloture" and the 60% number has changed from time-to-time.)

So, if there is there is any "abuse" it is the frequency with which is it employed, and not in the actual use of it as means to frustrate legislation. I.e., no perversion of purpose.

OTOH, the quorum rule(s) is designed to prevent legislative mischief whereby some legislators can assemble without the others for the sole purpose of passing a bill they could not otherwise. So, in this case we have clear perversion of the quorum rules which are being used as a means to reach an objective for which they were never intended. (Note: I could be wrong here because I'm too lazy to research that state's quorum rules. And if someone can show that they have morphed into something else, like the filibuster and cloture rules have, I'll be happy to acknowledge it.)

I.e., he is more or less correct and you are not.

Fern

Sorry, nope.

First, the filibuster was not abused 'soon'. There was not a single cloture filing by the US Senate for the first 118 years of its existence up until 1919. After that period, filibusters were still extraordinarily rare until the 90's. Even then they were not particularly common and it was only in 2006 when the Republicans lost control of the Senate that they took their current form of rampant, irresponsible abuse.

The Senate lacking rules to stop debate came, once again, from the desire to create a collegial atmosphere, NOT to require a 3/5ths (or whatever) majority to pass a bill. The allowance of extended debate was most certainly not designed to give the minority the ability to frustrate legislation, therefore the filibuster is absolutely a perversion of the Senate's rules.

If you want to argue that the filibuster is different because its purpose was perverted before the quorum... uhmmm... okay. I was unaware that this was a requirement. May I add you to the list of those with suspiciously selective outrage over quorum rules vs. the filibuster?

 

[werepossum]

I don't care which party is doing it, this is simply unacceptable for elected reps to do. These people should be summoned and where they're supposed to be at within 8 hours. For the second offense they should lose their office and be permanently banned from holding any job offered by that State.

Disgusting.

I agree completely.

So Republicans want to make killing someone OK if you claim you believed they were threatening?

Pretty sure if there were any actual danger of Democrats dying from losing their cushy government jobs, they'd actually be willing to show up and do the jobs they expect to be paid for. Even if they suspected they weren't going to get their way.

 

[werepossum]

Sorry, nope.

First, the filibuster was not abused 'soon'. There was not a single cloture filing by the US Senate for the first 118 years of its existence up until 1919. After that period, filibusters were still extraordinarily rare until the 90's. Even then they were not particularly common and it was only in 2006 when the Republicans lost control of the Senate that they took their current form of rampant, irresponsible abuse.

The Senate lacking rules to stop debate came, once again, from the desire to create a collegial atmosphere, NOT to require a 3/5ths (or whatever) majority to pass a bill. The allowance of extended debate was most certainly not designed to give the minority the ability to frustrate legislation, therefore the filibuster is absolutely a perversion of the Senate's rules.

If you want to argue that the filibuster is different because its purpose was perverted before the quorum... uhmmm... okay. I was unaware that this was a requirement. May I add you to the list of those with suspiciously selective outrage over quorum rules vs. the filibuster?

I agree with Darwin that the filibuster should return to its original requirements (though I understand why it was changed) but still, most people see a big difference between showing up and doing your job to the best of your ability, even if you don't get your way, and simply not showing up at all to get your way.

 

[Double Trouble]

I see absolutely no problem with this law, there are similar laws on the books in many other states and it hasn't led to the "wild wild west" the democrats always claim.

If I were to not show up for work for two days, I'd be fired. Every legislature should pass a similar provision: don't show up for work, get fired. They should simply lose their seat and a new election would be used to fill the seat. The legislator who is apparently unable or unwilling to do their job would not be eligible to run for a seat int he legislature again.

 

[dmcowen674]

Iowa Democrats Flee in Protest

I didn't think Iowa had any Democrats so what's the big deal?

 

[pcgeek11]

You can justify pretty much any killing by saying you believed your life was in danger. The burden would be on the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your belief was unreasonable.

Just like in any other trial: The burden would be on the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Easy Huh.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I didn't think Iowa had any Democrats so what's the big deal?

Why don't you and Ausm go talk about other stuff you don't know about because clearly you two are too ignorant to understand that Iowa is almost half and half.
We currently have a senate that is D controlled and our last two Governors were D. Sheesh, atleast TRY to educate yourself before spouting.... oh wait nevermind it doesn't matter with you two.

 

[dmcowen674]

Why don't you and Ausm go talk about other stuff you don't know about because clearly you two are too ignorant to understand that Iowa is almost half and half.
We currently have a senate that is D controlled and our last two Governors were D. Sheesh, atleast TRY to educate yourself before spouting.... oh wait nevermind it doesn't matter with you two.

Wow, awesome I didn't think there was any chance for Iowa to be saved from Republicans.

I am glad to be wrong in this case.

 

[Fern]

Sorry, nope.

First, the filibuster was not abused 'soon'. There was not a single cloture filing by the US Senate for the first 118 years of its existence up until 1919.

Come on. "Cloture" wasn't established until about 1917 IIRC. So of course there wasn't any cloture before then. But there were filibusters. The cloture rule was enacted then because Woodrow Wilson (IIRC) was angry that some legislation he wanted was filibustered.

After that period, filibusters were still extraordinarily rare until the 90's. Even then they were not particularly common and it was only in 2006 when the Republicans lost control of the Senate that they took their current form of rampant, irresponsible abuse.

The Senate lacking rules to stop debate came, once again, from the desire to create a collegial atmosphere, NOT to require a 3/5ths (or whatever) majority to pass a bill. The allowance of extended debate was most certainly not designed to give the minority the ability to frustrate legislation, therefore the filibuster is absolutely a perversion of the Senate's rules.

If you want to argue that the filibuster is different because its purpose was perverted before the quorum... uhmmm... okay. I was unaware that this was a requirement. May I add you to the list of those with suspiciously selective outrage over quorum rules vs. the filibuster?

The Budget Reconciliation process was adopted in 1974. It was in response to the filibuster/cloture rules and carves out a simple majority vote to help move along revenue/spending bills.

For the longest time the filibuster/cloture rules have meant a 60% vote needed to move non-revenue bills through the Senate. Everyone knows this.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
May I add you to the list of those with suspiciously selective outrage over quorum rules vs. the filibuster?

Forgot to address this bit.

I understand peoples' frustration over filibusters and the like. Repubs experienced it when Bush was in office and trying to fill federal judge positions.

But I don't think filibusters, or what some think are excessive use of them is the problem. It's a symptom.

I'm even beginning to doubt that problem is the ugly 'tone', the harsh rhetoric, the inability to compromise etc.

I'm starting to think that the problem is that the two sides want to pursue increasingly divergent paths for the USA.

I continually hear liberals complain that Repub are becoming more extreme. But they are no longer merely calling for even more govt regulation, they want outright govt ownership of a large part of our private economy. I'm not debating whether or not that is desirable. Indeed, that would miss the point. If one party wants govt ownership of an industry and the other doesn't how do you compromise? I don't think you can.

Likewise with fiscal matters. One wants to spend more, racking up ever larger national debt to get the economy going or provide better social nets, whatever. The other one has become fearful of debt and the ugly consequences they think it brings. Again, debating which is better policy misses the point. We have two vastly different paths, so different I do not see much in the way of compromise as even possible.

Getting rid of the filibuster isn't going to solve this problem. Indeed, this new 'novel use' of the quorum rules is a result of these ever divergent paths and a response to that.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Forgot to address this bit.

I understand peoples' frustration over filibusters and the like. Repubs experienced when Bush was in office and trying to fill federal judge positions.

But I don't think filibusters, or what some think are excessive use of them is the problem. It's a symptom.

I'm even beginning to doubt that problem is the ugly 'tone', the harsh rhetoric, the inability to compromise etc.

I'm starting to think that the problem is that the two sides want to pursue increasingly divergent paths for the USA.

I continually hear liberals complain that Repub are becoming more extreme. But they are no longer merely calling for even more govt regulation, they want outright govt ownership of a large part of our private economy. I'm not debating whether or not that is desirable. Indeed, that would miss the point. If one party wants govt ownership of an industry and the other doesn't how do you compromise? I don't think you can.

Likewise with fiscal matters. One wants to spend more, racking up ever larger national debt to get the economy going or provide better social nets, whatever. The other one has become fearful of debt and the ugly consequences they think it brings. Again, debating which is better policy misses the point. We have two vastly different paths, so different I do not see much in the way of compromise as even possible.

Getting rid of the filibuster isn't going to solve this problem. Indeed, this new 'novel use' of the quorum rules is a result of these ever divergent paths and a response to that.

Fern

Exactly right.

 

[fskimospy]

Come on. "Cloture" wasn't established until about 1917 IIRC. So of course there wasn't any cloture before then. But there were filibusters. The cloture rule was enacted then because Woodrow Wilson (IIRC) was angry that some legislation he wanted was filibustered.

Even if you just want to talk about the requirement for cloture (which is silly, since cloture was only required due to important legislation being filibustered and people always backed down in the past), there wasn't a recorded filibuster for nearly 50 years after the creation of the Senate and even in that case the filibuster-er did not actually block the legislation.

As I previously stated, up until at least 1917 there was no cloture because it was entirely unnecessary. The filibuster simply was not used to block legislation. To learn more about this topic read here:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2009/12/history-of-senate-filibuster.html

So once again, the filibuster was NOT, repeat NOT created to allow the minority to block unpopular legislation. It really wasn't created much at all, it was simply a unique usage of Senate rules. Any attempt to say it was created with such a thing in mind is simply revisionist history.

The Budget Reconciliation process was adopted in 1974. It was in response to the filibuster/cloture rules and carves out a simple majority vote to help move along revenue/spending bills.

For the longest time the filibuster/cloture rules have meant a 60% vote needed to move non-revenue bills through the Senate. Everyone knows this.

Fern

I'm not even sure how that relates to what I wrote. All I can say is go look at the number of cloture movements by year. You will notice they are basically nonexistent up until the 70's, quite low until the 90's, and then they explode in 2006.

 

[Ausm]

They haven't been abusing the filibuster. The filibuster is in place to prevent dumb shits from passing stupid laws, it's working as intended.

LMAO.....Do you live in an alternate reality?

 

[Jhhnn]

LMAO.....Do you live in an alternate reality?

Of course he does. Righties don't just have their own opinions, they have their own facts, too...

Repubs see govt as incompetent, and when they have things their way, it is. Their record on nominees bears that out, as well.

 

[monovillage]

http://american.com/archive/2011/january/save-the-filibuster

He says it better then I do.