WSJ says WI 14 to return
- Thread starter obtuseobserver
- Start date
Yes, stopping a partisan bill from being voted on before it can even be debated is such a horrible thing.
But they are hiding. Not debating.Yes, stopping a partisan bill from being voted on before it can even be debated is such a horrible thing.
Because they didn't have the votes to stop the vote and WI doesn't have the filibuster. So they prevented a quorum by leaving and have been negotiating the whole time.
I understand that. So they just took the ball and ran. If everyone ran to keep from losing a vote not much would get done.
It's no different then a filibuster, they're simply not doing it on the Senate Floor as it's not allowed. The ban on filibusterering is why they left, acting like they were scared is nothing more then the Party Line that the Republican Party expects it's members to tow in hopes of discrediting them. Politically it was a smart move but the public doesn't seem to be buying it, even some of the Republican senators that supported the bill are reconsidering now that they've had a chance to actually read the thing and seen the unions accept every budget demand given to them.
If I was Gov. Walker, I'd of realized that people weren't buying my propaganda and started attacking this issue from another, non-budget, angle (perhaps accusing the unions of costing WI jobs). The problem is he seems to think he's winning this (even as the protests grow larger and supposedly pro-Walker unions join the protests) and so keeps up with his original strategy. This keeps up he'll lose any credibility and can kiss his re-election chances goodbye.
Everyone knows they are busing in protesters from other states to make it bigger than it is. Unions will do anything to keep their hand in the workers pockets. But the union will still sell them out. I know this because I was sold out by the Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union. So I am all for anything cutting union power. I took it personal.
Yes, stopping a partisan bill from being voted on before it can even be debated is such a horrible thing.
Weird... sounds like the Dems in the Senate huh? Bills are usuallyu as partisan as a party can get away with. To think other is silly. Hell, look at the previous Congress for your example.
Anyway, they didn't want debate they wanted to prevent a quorum because they cannot survive a motion to end debate and bring the vote. They acknowledge they'll lose the vote.
from hiding...
running away from a threat or challenge has a name for it
Catagorically false!
You have to be there to filibuster. When a party tries to filibuster the other can call a cloture vote or a vote to end debate.
In this case the Dems have conceded they'd have no chance with either so they ran away. They know the rules. They just aren't playing by them.
Don't confuse parliamentary procedure with this unless you're prepared to accept the GOP passing all manner of other bills not requiring a quorum. (Or doing same if faced with similar minority numbers).
So, back to your analogy. Let's presume WI has the filibuster rule. May we presume the Dems tried and lost and therefore should be back in Madison? Or, is your analogy faulty?
The point of a filibuster is to stop debate (or to monopolize debate as Sen. Sanders showed recently). WI, lacking the filibuster, doesn't give this option to it's lawmakers. Noting this the dissenting senators decided to leave the capital (and the state to prevent being forced back) which would prevent a quorum thus achieving the same effect.
You don't filibuster when you have the votes, it's meant to be used as a weapon of last resort by the minority. If you don't have the votes to kill (or pass as the situation may be) a bill and doing such is a priority, you filibuster to stop the vote and buy yourself time.
As for that last part, WI doesn't have the filibuster which is why they prevented a quorum and as the protests are growing larger, they have popular support and some Republican supporters of the bill, having read it, are starting to reconsider. I'd say they are quite far removed from 'losing'.
But be a party line hack, your forum name suits you well.
The point of a filibuster is to stop debate. That's not what the dems did. They prevented debate from beginning, a cloture vote from being taken and the business of the legislature to proceed.
You really need to stop explaining the purpose of a filibuster and the fact that WI doesn't have one.
What I am explaining to you is that the Dems are not effecting a de facto filibuster. A filibuster would require them to be there and to participate. They ran away.
So, again, presuming this hypothetical analogous filibuster; the GOP has the votes to end it. So, again, because the Dems are preventing the GOP from ending a filibuster by running away your analogy doesn't hold water. A better one would be locking the doors and preventing anyone from entering.
This ^ isn't party line hack - its pretty straight forward explanation of why your understanding of a filibuster and what the dems are doing are not on par. But go ahead and continue to make excuses for the Dems.
You really need to stop explaining the purpose of a filibuster and the fact that WI doesn't have one.
What I am explaining to you is that the Dems are not effecting a de facto filibuster. A filibuster would require them to be there and to participate. They ran away.
So, again, presuming this hypothetical analogous filibuster; the GOP has the votes to end it. So, again, because the Dems are preventing the GOP from ending a filibuster by running away your analogy doesn't hold water. A better one would be locking the doors and preventing anyone from entering.
This ^ isn't party line hack - its pretty straight forward explanation of why your understanding of a filibuster and what the dems are doing are not on par. But go ahead and continue to make excuses for the Dems.
Similar threads
