That would be fun to look into. I've been talking about deliberative bodies in general, of which I've been a member of many. A motion can be tabled with a simple majority, but to force a vote while debate is still underway requires a supermajority.
The US Senate seems to have the additional hurdle that without 60 votes, public debate doesn't even begin. That's all kinds of fucked up.
yes.and then I find myself saying 'c'mon covid, do your thing!' and I'm appalled at myself. but really, what other hope is there when the cons take 'consent of the governed' and throw it in the trash?
Elie Mystal is my (one of) favorite commentators on MSNBC, he is always angry about the same things that I am. I guess I mean I think he's really smart.
Instead of just putting forth the idea of a carve out they need to put all of the filibuster options on the table - require 40 senators to maintain a filibuster, return to the talking filibuster, only allow a filibuster for final votes but not to block debate, whatever, and then make them go on record voting yes or no.
Many deliberative bodies have in their rules a provision of some supermajority to end debate on a matter, in order to prevent a simple majority from ramming everything through without so much as entertaining an opposing view. However, supermajority is typically defined as members present, thus if a minority wishes to continue debate, they actually have to BE THERE and engaged in the debate. And the rules presume good faith of all parties such that if debate continues, they actually, you know, TALK ABOUT THE THING and not something else as a way of simply obstructing the vote by technicality.
So the senate rule that a minority of non-present members, and/or members reading aloud from Dr. Seuss, can hold up a vote when meaningful debate has clearly ended is a bullshit rule.
I don’t know who is being more absurd. Moscow Mitch, who has never seen a norm or tradition he wouldn’t blow up in the pursuit of power casting himself as the defender of tradition, or Manchin claiming that the current 60 vote supermajority is some grand tradition that must never be changed under any circumstances.
The current rules don’t do anything to encourage debate or bipartisan compromise no matter what bullshit Mancinema spew. It effectively gives the minority a veto over any legislation, making it impossible to pass anything of substance.
I've been saying for months that the DNC should get off that pile of Wall Street money they're sitting on and just bribe the bastards and be done with it.
It's basically Robert's Rules of Order, which a lot of deliberative bodies use.https://jurassicparliament....
Name me any legislative body beside the US Senate which requires a supermajority to call the question.
That would be fun to look into. I've been talking about deliberative bodies in general, of which I've been a member of many. A motion can be tabled with a simple majority, but to force a vote while debate is still underway requires a supermajority.
The US Senate seems to have the additional hurdle that without 60 votes, public debate doesn't even begin. That's all kinds of fucked up.
yes.and then I find myself saying 'c'mon covid, do your thing!' and I'm appalled at myself. but really, what other hope is there when the cons take 'consent of the governed' and throw it in the trash?
Hamilton wouldn't have known about that, I don't think.
Valid points.
Senator Serial Scab strikes (out) again. Somebody get the blanket.
Broadway star Alexander HamiltonOK that made me LOL
Elie Mystal is my (one of) favorite commentators on MSNBC, he is always angry about the same things that I am. I guess I mean I think he's really smart.
Instead of just putting forth the idea of a carve out they need to put all of the filibuster options on the table - require 40 senators to maintain a filibuster, return to the talking filibuster, only allow a filibuster for final votes but not to block debate, whatever, and then make them go on record voting yes or no.
Many deliberative bodies have in their rules a provision of some supermajority to end debate on a matter, in order to prevent a simple majority from ramming everything through without so much as entertaining an opposing view. However, supermajority is typically defined as members present, thus if a minority wishes to continue debate, they actually have to BE THERE and engaged in the debate. And the rules presume good faith of all parties such that if debate continues, they actually, you know, TALK ABOUT THE THING and not something else as a way of simply obstructing the vote by technicality.
So the senate rule that a minority of non-present members, and/or members reading aloud from Dr. Seuss, can hold up a vote when meaningful debate has clearly ended is a bullshit rule.
I'm sure he'd approve a return to that "tradition" as well.
I don’t know who is being more absurd. Moscow Mitch, who has never seen a norm or tradition he wouldn’t blow up in the pursuit of power casting himself as the defender of tradition, or Manchin claiming that the current 60 vote supermajority is some grand tradition that must never be changed under any circumstances.
The current rules don’t do anything to encourage debate or bipartisan compromise no matter what bullshit Mancinema spew. It effectively gives the minority a veto over any legislation, making it impossible to pass anything of substance.
I've been saying for months that the DNC should get off that pile of Wall Street money they're sitting on and just bribe the bastards and be done with it.
The “tradition” that Black people shouldn’t have a vote is even longer despite the passage of the 14th and 15th amendments.