Originally posted by Darth Jello
It starts sucking dick when they pass rules in Cogress that allow some Republican Fascist fat **** to simply say he's filibustering without actually doing anything and then they all just leave to do blow or cash their Phillip Morris checks or rape children or whatever it is that conservatives do in their free time and nothing gets done that isn't a train wreck.These Texans are even worse. I mean some dumb **** in their senate actually thinks rape kits give you abortions. It makes me wonder if people are genuinely that stupid or if Texas puts radium salts in their drinking water.
Now calm down about Texas buddy, we ain't to bad. There's some of us in hiding behind enemy lines, avoiding the anti-democrat death mobs. 😉 But yeah, there's something definetly wrong with the ground water tho.
Originally posted by Peach
The legislative session is supposed to be over, and Perry is calling another special session simply to try and pass this...despite the fact that it's been killed once in special session (which exist solely so bills can try and be pushed through with minimal debate), and despite the fact that the majority of the people in Texas don't want to see it passed. I don't have the link to the article anymore, but something like 80% of people in this state either oppose it or think it's unnecessary.It's a dick move on top of every other dick move pulled recently.
A filibuster is a dick move by the same logic. This is just politics- a filibuster is an artificial tactic used to try and sink a vote. By the same rules, calling another session is a tactic designed to get the vote passed. Once you start playing with legislative tricks, you are entering a particular sort of battleground and have no right to complain when your opponents play by the same rulebook.
ALL filibusters are crap. Matters in democracy should go to a vote, not this kind of nonsense. If Texans didn't want laws like this, they should use their own vote as leverage. In the end, all a filibuster does is cock up the democratic process because someone doesn't like the law, a horrible logic.
If the Republicans had used a filibuster to block, say, a gay rights bill, I somehow think you wouldn't be upset if a new session was created to try and pass it again.
If this vote passes, it will be because it was democratically enacted. That's the name of the game. If you want to fight democratically enacted law, there are many ways to do it (re: what just happened to DOMA) without having to resort to cheap anti-democratic tactics like this.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
ALL filibusters are crap. Matters in democracy should go to a vote, not this kind of nonsense. If Texans didn't want laws like this, they should use their own vote as leverage. In the end, all a filibuster does is cock up the democratic process because someone doesn't like the law, a horrible logic.
I won't pretend my personal politics have no effect but filibusters are not inherently crap. Plenty of things can come down to a simple majority. A filibuster forces important issues to be raised to a significant majority. Yes, it delays important things and can be used as a harassment tactic but even in a democracy the minority should not be totally disenfranchised.
This is not the electorate whose minority rights need protecting! The minority in a legislative voting quorum should be disenfranchised- that's the whole bloody point of a representative democratic legislature! It's ridiculous to require more than a bare majority to pass votes, though if you are weird enough to not want that, then make needing more a general rule, not peculiar to situations where people use cheap exploitations. And this usage was nothing to do with majorities but all to do with an attempt to scupper the bill entirely.
There is no reasonable justification for filibustering and all reasonable democracies make using it impractical. It's a weirdness of the US system that they are still present and practical. Filibusters sidestep the democratic process and reduce the whole thing down to rules lawyering to try and leverage maximum effect, which is what is now happening.
How is it representative if the majority of the state is against the measure and yet the people in power insist on trying to pass it anyway?
That is why Wendy Davis did a 13 hour filibuster, why Leticia van de Putte (my state senator!) went on the offensive towards the end, why the gallery was packed with people, why hundreds of thousands of people were watching the proceedings via livestream, why shit hit the fan when the GOP was so desperate to try and pass this that they altered timestamps and blatantly broke the law and then backed down when they realized no one was going to buy that.
This is where I live now. And one thing I'm learning pretty quickly - the people in this state are a hell of a lot more blue than the ones in power are.
Did you know that two hours after part of the Voter's Rights Act was considered unconstitutional, TX already enacted laws designed to disenfranchise minority voters? Because minorities tend to vote blue. Do you know what gerrymandering is? It's redrawing districts to try and keep the people they want in power in charge.
So no, there's nothing representative about this bill trying to be passed at all, as most of the state doesn't want it, and all it will do is completely and totally **** over any woman that doesn't live in a large city. I'm lucky enough where if it does pass I'd be okay - I'm in San Antonio. But the vast majority of the people in this state - and it's massive - will be completely screwed.
Found it, btw.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/06/24/2202991/poll-texans-oppose-sb-5/
So yeah, the filibuster blocking the bill? Was actually representative of what the populace wanted - not the GOP trying to force it through.
Originally posted by Peach
Found it, btw.http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/06/24/2202991/poll-texans-oppose-sb-5/
So yeah, the filibuster blocking the bill? Was actually representative of what the populace wanted - not the GOP trying to force it through.
Full breakdown from the pollster's site:
http://gqrr.com/images/Blog_posts/documents/2013/061913_TX_ACLU__FQ_public.pdf
The 80% number isn't very interesting, its just that Texans don't think abortion is a big deal and other topics should be the focus of the legislature.
6 looks like the number we want since 7 is far from neutrally worded. About 63 of the state thinks abortion laws are either where they should be or too restrictive. When the intention of the bill is read, however, the numbers get closer to each other with only 51 opposing it.
I think what Ush is saying though is that within the context of legislation "what the populace wants" is represented by the legislators, and in this realm the current whims of the general populace are more or less irrelevant--until it comes time for the next vote. If that is what Ush is saying, then I can see his point, the entire basis of representative democracy and representative legislation is that the people choose who they want to make the laws, they themselves don't have any direct say in it, unless it's put to referendum.
I think instead of filibustering (which puts the power into the hands of a legislator) there should be a system whereby an unpopular bill can be put on hold for a public referendum. Implementing this would be difficult though, and I'm not sure who would have the power to call this referendum, and it might even slow down the process more than a filibuster already does.
I don't agree with Ush's position that the legislative process should completely disregard the minority in favor of "a simple majority is always right" practice. Though I might be misunderstanding his position as he's coming from the perspective of UK politics and I don't understand them all that well.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
This is not the electorate whose minority rights need protecting! The minority in a legislative voting quorum should be disenfranchised- that's the whole bloody point of a representative democratic legislature!
They're representatives of the people, of course their right to represent their people should be protected. The ability to filibuster and force the higher water mark up means the majority cannot simply ignore the minority unless there is overwhelming support for a measure.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
It's ridiculous to require more than a bare majority to pass votes
No its not. If you run every vote by simple majority things will swing back and forth all the time and random noise changes the makeup of the representatives. It's bad enough that it happens in the executive.
Amendments to the constitution require 3/4th of the states to ratify them.
And in Germany to change some parts of our "constitution" (some are inalienable I believe) we require a 2/3rd majority.
I do think constitutions are meant to protect minorities from the majoritiy's rule, and filibusters are a somewhat silly, ugly and ultimately ineffective way to do so (even if I am all on the side of this one, lets just look at the craziness filibusters have done to Obama's ability to lead).