This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The general term is optical disc. DVDs, Blu-rays, etc. are all types of optical discs. The specific name this specific standard and medium is somewhat arbitrary and up to them.
Post by
Nathanyal
Man orders tie and handkerchief, gets SS numbers instead.
Post by
Skreeran
Man orders tie and handkerchief, gets SS numbers instead.
That is to say, Social Security numbers.
When I first read the link, I thought it meant Waffen SS numbers.
Post by
Azazel
Did somebone say Schutzstaffel?
Post by
Monday
Skree, I'm fairly sure most people in America link SS with Social Security. I know I do.
Post by
Skreeran
When I hear SS, I instantly see scary men in black trenchcoats.
Post by
Sagramor
When I hear SS, I instantly see scary men in black trenchcoats.
Stylish
black trench-coats. Designed and fabricated by
Hugo Boss.
Post by
Sagramor
Sorry for the double-post, but:
Moscow and Beijing/Hong Kong basically tell America to &*!@ off.
Post by
Squishalot
So while filibusters are topical in Texas, can someone in the US explain to me why / how they are used in the first place? What stops a vote from being taken before a Senator starts talking? What prevents a vote from being taken the next day?
Article for reference:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/25/texas-senator-wendy-davis-filibuster-abortion
(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The rules of congress allow for ample debate, with pretty much any congressman allowed to speak. In some cases time-limits are agreed to, but in most cases anyone is allowed to speak for as long as they want. As far as the next morning is concerned, you have to keep in mind that every State can have its own rules, but generally if you speak through the night you can keep on going through the next day too.
Edit: Oh, in this case, the Texas Senate is on a 30-special session, which is over today, at which point the Senate will go on recess until the are in session again. All bills that have not been passed would be discarded and would have to be reintroduced again.
Post by
Squishalot
That doesn't seem particularly... fatal for the bill in question.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
That doesn't seem particularly... fatal for the bill in question.
I don't really understand this. Isn't that the very definition of killing a bill?
Post by
Squishalot
Presumably there is enough Senate support to pass the bill when it is subsequently reintroduced next session? Unless it was intended to push it out past the next election, how would the position change?
And why is it that you can't simply have each person against the bill speak out for an hour instead of having a single person speak for 13?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I feel like you're approaching this from a theoretical perspective and not seeing the reality of the situation. Congress isn't an I/O switch where you feed in a set of variables and get a predetermined output. Congress is a political machine that, like any long-running organization, has built itself on top of a teetering tower of evolution and compromises. And the organization aside, each congressman and congresswoman brings their own dynamic and their own baggage to it.
Is the bill going to pass in the next couple years? This is Texas we're talking about, so most likely. Did a woman stand up for what she and her constituents believe in and made at least some difference? Yes, however brief it might be. Why are filibusters allowed? They fulfill a role that every party has felt was needed at one point or another, and so they are accepted.
Post by
Squishalot
Well, the latter question is still a valid one - why is a filibuster required? Shouldn't there be ample opportunity for all senators to speak out in favour or against the bill? What practical purpose does a filibuster provide, other than feeding the media gallery, that couldn't be achieved via a party or stance effort?
Post by
Skreeran
So I was only vaguely aware of what a fillibuster was before this, but after doing my research, it seems stupid and unethical. The very idea of a representative democracy is that we all elect folks we believe are trustworthy and/or competent to go and vote to determine our policies. That one person, or a small group of determined people, can go in and exploit a loophole in the rules to kill a movement before anyone can vote on it just seems wrong to me.
Edit: Now I suppose with a three-fifths majority you can shut it down, but if you don't have a majority in support of the bill, then won't it get voted down anyway?
Post by
Gone
I feel the same way about presidential vetos
Post by
Skreeran
I feel the same way about presidential vetosWell those make sense at least. The executive officer decides if a law or policy is best for the country, and then if he vetoes it, it can still be passed after coming round from the Legislative branch though. Perhaps it's not the best way to do it, but at least it makes sense in theory.
Doing more research...
A filibuster is a phenomenon in which a senator takes advantage of the Senate’s rules allowing for unlimited debate, and refuses to yield the floor while speaking for an extended period of time. He does not even have to actually speak about the matter at hand.
In fact, many filibusters in the past have included a senator reading from literature and cookbooks.
What the actual %$#@.
That's just wrong, in my opinion.
Cloture is the process that brings debate to an eventual end by imposing a time limit of 30 hours on debate. To pass, cloture requires 60 votes, more than the simple 51 vote majority required to actually pass the bill itself. This means that 41 senators can prevent a vote on any bill or nomination that might otherwise pass with a vote of saw 55-45.This just seems unfair. The whole point is that we send people up there to vote. Exploiting a loophole to delay a vote is not what the Framers had in mind.
The net effect this has created is a de-facto 60 vote requirement to for the Senate to do anything of significance. It is exceedingly rare for either party to obtain anywhere close to 60 members in the Senate and it is even rarer for them to keep all them united. Some senators such as Sen. Jeff Merkely (D-Ore.) have called for reform of the rules so that an actual "talking filibuster" would be required to delay a vote, thus forcing senators who wish to block a vote to take a public stand and pay a political price for doing so rather than hide in shadows as they do now. As it is right now, it is almost impossible for the Senate to act as a legislative body and do anything constructive.
Edit: As for the Texas thing, I really can't say I support Wendy. I'm generally pretty Liberal-ish when it comes to things like Gay Marriage, Drug Reform, Universal Healthcare, and so on, but I see nothing wrong with prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks. A fetus' heart begins beating at 6 weeks.
Post by
Gone
I feel the same way about presidential vetosWell those make sense at least. The executive officer decides if a law or policy is best for the country, and then if he vetoes it, it can still be passed after coming round from the Legislative branch though. Perhaps it's not the best way to do it, but at least it makes sense in theory.
Doing more research...
That's true, it makes more sense than a filibuster, but not by much. A filibuster is the exploitation of a technicality, the presidential veto is just a law that is stupid by it's own design.
Post by
Patty
Welp, this is alarming (understatement).
It's not quite a news article, I don't think, but it fits best in here.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.