I think what they were doing was keeping it from a floor vote so right wing extremists wouldn’t go down the roll and abuse the people who voted against the measure. Also, the right wing extremist who introduced the measure was trying to avoid going through committee to get a floor vote so his fellow right wing extremists could play gotcha with the folks who voted against the measure.
Thanks Frank.
I would consider a constitutional amendment the ultimate example of facing an issue head-on. The amount of support one needs to amend the constitution is huge and if that large a supermajority wishes to change the rules in the nation’s supreme law then they can. It may suck to be part of the non-supermajority group, but it’s probably the greatest good for the greatest number. If the amendment is particularly odious then it should be possible to sway some portion of the population to prevent the formation of a supermajority.
Enjoy,
Steven
Probably for the same reason some batshit crazy Libertarians claim to be Liberals…
or some batshit crazy conservatives call themselves compassionate
I could call myself WonderBoy but I still would not be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.
If it walks like a duck…
The amendment in question is to the constitution of the state of Maryland, not the US Constitution. If you can explain how amending the Maryland constitution to ban same-sex marriage serves the greatest good for the greatest number, please do.
Yea, you got me.
My slavish and unthinking support for anyone who calls themself “Republican” is awe inspiring, innit?
Maybe because I am. I’m sorry that you are to blinded by partisanship to realize that Democrat != liberal. I’m a conservative Democrat. Sorry you have trouble grasping that concept.
Damn. You got me again. Every one of my political beliefs is formed with an eye towards what gives me “cred” on an internet message board. :rolleyes:
Aren’t you cute? I bet you can turn right around and spout off how you are a Democrat because it’s the party of “inclusiveness”, right? Yet if a Democrat appears who doesn’t to the line of the liberals who have hijacked the party into marginality, he’s “batshit crazy”. :wally Nobody seems to have noticed that I have repeatedly said that I think a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage is a terrible idea, and an affront to basic human rights. It’s all “Oh, he’s bashing Democrats, damn the facts, we must rush to their defense!”.
Personal and partisan bullshit stuff aside, what’s left?
I agree. Nowhere did I say that it wasn’t legal. It’s a misuse of the powers of the Speaker, however. Nowhere was the ability to recess the legislature intended as an avenue to prevent debate. I don’t believe Del. Dwyer’s use of petition was the same at all, it’s a (little used, admittedly) procedure that was put in place specifically to allow floor debate, and he used it properly. If you have any differing information, please provide it, I’d be interested in seeing it.
I’m of two minds about it. Generally my inclination in circumstances like these is to allow the largest number of relevant people- citizens, the full Congress, whatever the case may be, take up issue and vote on it, and the “Nuclear Option” would have allowed that. Fillibustering, however, is a long standing tradition in our government, and does have it’s place, I suppose. I can see both sides. The “Nuclear Option” is-just-withion the rules, and the fillibuster is an obstructionist tactic. Since I thing government should be about comprimise and not obstruction, I’ll have to say that I am-just by a slight bit- OK with the “Nuclear Option”.
Boy I am simply amazed. If a Republican defends Bush by pointing out that previous Democratic administrations did the same thing or something similar, the outcry of “Saying the Democrats do it too isn’t a valid defense!” Yet when the shoe is on the other foot, guess what gets trotted out…
Mhendo is dead on here,and one doesn’t have to look at Republican assumptions to believe it (From his next post-“Admittedly, the “assumption” that not all Democrats would vote against the measure, comes, in large part, from the Republicans themselves…This is merely an assumption, but it’s one that (unfortunately) seems reasonable, given the way this debate has developed in Maryland over the past months”.). All you have to do is look at the Democratic power base in the state. Only 4 districts-Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Prince Georges County and Montgomery County-typically vote Democrat. Two of those-Baltimore City and Prince Georges County- are predominantly black districts, and a large percentage of these voters are delivered to the Democrats by black church organizations-which tend to vehemently oppose SSM.
Personally, I don’t think it does. But shouldn’t that be up to the citizens of the state to decide?
This entire thread is about one thing: Does the end justify the means? As I’ve said before, and I’ll repeat it as many times as necessary, I like the fact that the SSM bill is now dead. I am happy. This was the correct outcome, IMHO. Yet, the method used to accomplish this was dead wrong. People on these board are always condemning Republicans when they act in a manner that the particular poster feels is not kosher, the blade cuts both ways. Was Speaker Busch’s recession legal? Yes, yes it was. It was still a craven, cowardly thing to do, born out of an attempt to stifle legitimate debate and to impose his personal beliefs on the rest of the legislature. If it’s wrong when Tom Delay does it, then it’s just as wrong when Speaker Busch does it. Partisanship has nothing to do with it. If Speaker Busch was a Republican, I bet none of you would have tried to defend him. What’s more important? Partisanship, or ethical procedures of government?
Well, if that bastion of liberal thinking, the Washington Times is any indication, the Republicans’ use of the discharge petition was also rather unusual, not just in terms of how often the petition is used, but in terms of the reasons for its use.
You allege that this type of petition is designed specifically to allow floor debate, but if the Mooney Times is right, your interpretation misses one important aspect: the fact that such a petition is generally reserved for occasions when a bill has become stalled in committee, and appears unlikely to be resolved in that way.
In this case, the bill was not stalled. In fact, as every news item i’ve read points out, this bill was right on schedule in the committee, and both Republicans and Democrats were well aware that the committee vote on the bill was due to take place yesterday.
So, to review: the discharge petition is generally reserved for occasions when the committee won’t act one way or another on the bill. The petition is then used to break this inaction and force the bill to the floor. In this particular case, however, the only reason for the discharge petition was because Republicans realized that the committee might not vote the way they wanted.
As i said in my earlier post, it’s all politics as usual, and i don’t really see much different between the gamesmanship of the Republicans and the gamemanship of Speaker Busch in this matter.
Yep, it’s everyone else who has a problem. Not you. :rolleyes:
The shoe is NOT on the other foot, weird kid. The facts do not support a tu quoque here. You know what facts are, don’t you? :wally
You just don’t get it. The primary criticism of the Republicans you see here is about *what * they do, *not * how they do it. Yes, apparently you really *are * that dumb. :wally
Er, uh, no, civil rights shouldn’t be put to a popular vote.
So acting in a legal manner completely within the rules of the House to block an attempted end run around the committee is unethical, but the end run around the committee isn’t?
Or could it be that neither move was unethical?
Take out the “un” there and I think you’re closer to the truth. Both moves were technically legal, but a corruption of the intent of the rules.
Not necessarily the best scenario but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
I applaud the Speaker for doing the right thing and taking a stand against this mean spirited bit of legislation. The fight against any type of bigotry always starts out as an uphill battle. If nobody in this country ever took a strong stand in favor of civil rights, bending or even outright breaking the rules (in this case it’s bending at the most)… where the hell would we be today?
Well under that logic maybe I’ll become a Republican for shits and giggles, start showing up to Republican meetings and being the one liberal voice in the room. I’ll be about as welcome a turd in a punchbowl, but it’ll sure be interesting.
Look, shithead, political parties are formed via circumstances and history. Its’ not like God or whoever decided on the 8th day that there would be Republicans and Democrats. There can be conservative Democrats and liberal Repulbicans (ever heard of "Rockafeller Republicas?). Do you really want to alienate a Democrat in a red state because you’ve already pissed off at least one: me.
No, I can grasp that concept quite easily. I live in a state where a Democrat has to be on the conservative side to be elected in a state-wide election, and I’ve voted for them. However, the only evidence I’ve ever seen that you are a Democrat is your claim to be.
I’ve asked you twice in the past why you claim to be a Democrat when all your vitriol on the SDMB is directed at Democrats. What Democratic positions do you support? I have never seen you support the Democratic Party in your posts here. What Republican positions do you oppose? I have never seen you oppose the Republican Party in your posts here. Why do you never attack the right-wing wingnuts on the SDMB with the pleasure that you seem to have in attacking the left-wing wingnuts here?
As far as I can tell, you think you’re a Joe Lieberman, but you’re really a Zell Miller. You have no business in the Democratic Party if all you can do is attack your own party. Why do you want to think of yourself as a Democrat if you despise your fellow travellers as much as is apparent?
As I said, I’ve asked you twice why you say you are a Democrat; perhaps this time I’ll get an answer.
I support Blalron’s desire for institutionalized polarization of American politics. It’s great entertainment for those of us who don’t have to endure it up close.
It’s interesting that the only comparison the Republican party has for a “liberal” Republican is a man who has been dead for almost thirty years, yet I can think of at least five active “conservative” Democrats off the top of my head.
Joking aside, i think that greater polarization might actually benefit the country. Over the past few years, there’s been far too much agreement on far too many issues for my liking, with many Democrats attempting to compete for an increasingly right-wing “middle ground” and in the process giving up the values and the people that made the party what it was.
Unfortunately, that’s been the story with so many of the west’s social democratic parties over the past decade or so.
Jesus fuck but you’re a moron Frank. I don’t see why I have to justify my politics to you or anyone else, but if you weren’t so blinded by your petty partisan judgments, you’d find one answer to all these questions in the OP. Seems reading comprehension is something else you have trouble with.
In case you haven’t noticed, this place is infested with left wing wingnuts. The right wing versions are few and far between. But if you look around, I don’t think you’ll notice me giving a whole hell of a lot of support for the more wing nutty posts made by those on the right, and I’ve stated my disagreement with the right’s more repugnant social engineering agenda plenty of times.
JUST WHO IN THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, ASSHOLE??? You have no business calling yourself a Democrat if you think you have some divine right to anoint exactly who can and who can’t join your precious political party. This is an stunning example of idiotic group think at it most pernicious. Party first, last and always, huh? So, if I don’t march in lockstep with whatever liberal agenda you’re pushing, then I don’t belong in your party? If I dare to think for myself and decide each issue on it’s merits, I don’t belong in your party? In short, if I am a Democrat, yet dare hold any opinions that are different than the ones you approve of, then I don’t belong in the party? FUCK. YOU. You probably fancy that your party is the “party of the big tent”, but you’re deluded. It’s becoming the party of the big circle jerk. Your ilk is marginalizing the Democratic party to a fringe role in American politics, and when I protest this, you tell me that if I’m not with you then I’m against you, and suggest that I don’t belong? Here’s a news flash, genius, the Democratic party has not had a presidential candidate elected with a majority of the votes in this country in 30 FUCKING YEARS! If not for Watergate, they would never have accomplished this feat in my lifetime. Don’t you dare go telling me that I am the problem. Ultra-Liberal Democrats are going to be the ultimate architects of the one party system in this country, and you’re going to do it with your arrogance, your hubris, and your blind determination that everyone should just drink the Kool Aid and shut up because you know what’s best for them. Phooey.
I’m a Democrat, shit-for-brains. I don’t spend my time attacking everybody else in my political party - like you, only the ones who don’t have a divided brain cell - like you. Perhaps if your brain cell lodges up against a neuron for long enough, you would be able to articulate your positions, instead of bubbling and frothing at a perfectly reasonable question. Why do you call yourself a Democrat?
I feel perfectly safe in saying that the majority of conservative/Republican posters on this board do not view me as an overly partisan Democrat. Why should I have to take more name-calling from you than I do from those I openly oppose? You villify those in your own party. Why do you wish to remain in that party, when you despise and detest those who are in the party with you? What makes you a Democrat?
I defy you to cite instances where you have attacked clothahump or updike or stephe96 with the vitriol and the visciousness with which you have attacked your fellow Democrats on this message board. You hate Democrats. Why should you be a Democrat?
Who the fuck do I think I am? I am someone who wants absolutely nothing to do with you. I am someone who thinks you are a despicable, evil, horrid person. Were I still in Maryland, I would go to a MAD dopefest just to refuse to shake your hand. That’s who I am. Who are you? I don’t think you know.
I am becoming thoroughly frustrated with the apparent belief that many Americans have that the majority should have their way. Our Republic is founded on the principles of Majority Rule, Minority Rights. So often on this board, I have read many posters (Repubs right now, but if power was reversed it would likely be dems) saying things like: A) If one party has the presidency and the Senate, they should get to choose whoever they want for the supreme court, or B) If a majority of Americans feel (blank) about a civil rights issue, then the majority should have their way.
This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about how politics were designed in the United States. Although the framers, as humans, were flawed in many ways, they had one thing in common: A hatred for a strong centralized power that can make quick decisions. They built multiple checks and balances into the system, as well as many procedures and loopholes to ensure that one party could not “rule”. They also wanted government to be slow and ponderous. If you look at history, many of the laws and bills passed quickly tend to be some of the largest mistakes because people did not look at the long-term ramifications.
I mean, just look at how Bush and Rove are using the single vote, authorizing force, to justify nearly supreme executive power that supercedes the Constitution and the Legislature and places oversight in the hands of the people wielding the power.
Many of the conservative dopers, I feel are very intelligent, and I just cannot understand how they cannot see the problem here. It is not about the decisions, which we may debate individually. Rather, it is about the eradication of the abilty of a minority to assert itself and prevent the majority from absolute rule. I know we have gone away from a lot of the principles espoused by the Founding Fathers, but how much longer are the intelligent, educated and reasonable members of our society (despite partisanship) going to let the powerful in society corrupt one of the greatest governmental systems in the history of humanity?
Don’t you realize that without things like “riders”, killing in committee and filibusters, one party with the Executive Branch and a slight majority in Congress would be in complete control?