Did DeLay ever articulate a reason to deep-six the bill was because he thought this was not the best way to address the problems on Saipan? Did DeLay encourage a stronger bill that would address the problems? Is it correct and proper, in your view, that one person in Congress can decide that for themself and kill a bill unilaterally?
As for being the “best” solution to the problem that is a can-of-worms with no end. Who can say with any certainty what would be the “best” way to address it? That is an impossible question to answer.
Could it have been better? Probably (I think so). IIRC in my reading other measures were considered and gotten rid of (minimum wage for instance which you said you hate so should be happy about). That is what happens in Congress. Compromises are made and it is rare a bill gets through that everyone gets what they want.
Bottom line is would it improve life for the people on Saipan and it seems it probably would have. Maybe not as much as we would hope for but better is still better and DeLay stopped even that for no discernible reason other than he was beholden to the powers-that-be in Saipan (or perhaps more accurately to Abramoff who had in interest in supporting the corporations on Saipan).
Sorta. By that I mean that he knew, must have known, that while his bill may have motivated by human rights needs, it didn’t adequately address those needs. He also knew, probably, that choosing this approach would get him a unanimous bill.
No. Because stupid half-measures like this are idiotic. They do little to fix the actual problem, and leave people with the impression that something has been done and that they can now concentrate on other things, which has the overall effect of making things WORSE.
I’ll leave it to the readers to decide how true this is. I’m the one saying a bill about immigration is a bill about immigration; my opponents are saying the bill about immigration was actually a bill to stop rape and forced abortions,and that anyone who doesn’t see it that way is scum. That you have the chutzpah, in the face of that, to suggest I’m the one bobbing and weaving is… well, it’s for the readers to decide.
He didn’t need to. Because, you see, he knew that existing law was perfectly adequate to go after exploitative employers.
How did he know this? Perhaps he read the news releases issued by the Department of Labor, which in 1992 sued a sweatshop owner, one Willie Tan, on behalf of employees who were were forced to work overtime without overtime pay, paid wages were below minimum wage, and employees were locked in their worksites and living spaces. Tan was forced to cough up $9 million in restitution to over a thousand of his workers, which set a then-record for the biggest fine ever from DoL.
So I am sure Delay was confident that existing laws, if enforced, were sufficient to protect workers.
Yes. And even asking the question suggests you are not so clear on the powers of the Speaker.
OK. Forget “the best.” Was this in the top fifty percent of possible solutions?
You realize, of course, that you are making some extraordinary suggestions. First, that the bill was so weak that it could be discarded without consequence. And further, you suggest that Senator Murkowski knew that it was ineffective, but used this configuration simply to attain unanimity. Have you any evidence outside of your own authority?
Nobody noticed? There were any number of Senators much in favor of such relief, some of whom may even have as much legal expertise as yourself. And yet no one noticed what is apparent to you on the first reading: it is empty, it cannot work. Extraordinary. All those legal experts, all those staffers and consultant, and none of them caught on?
With all due awe, Bricker, have you any other sources of authority on this?
There are 435 representatives. While it’s true that monolithic authority to schedule floor votes rests with the Speaker (and let’s rememebr that Delay was not even the speaker, but the Whip) any one of them can put a speech into the Congressional Record. Any one of them could have spoken up about the efficacy of this bill and the injustice of its demise. And enough of them could have together overridden the decision of the Speaker.
Right?
But I don’t need to find other sources of authority, because this question isn’t difficult. It’s simply, “Could a reasonable person believe that the bill should not pass?”
Or to put it more succinctly: is believing that this bill was unwise proof that you’re scum?
So all I need to do is show a reasonable case for the bill’s problems. Which I have done.
I “don’t know it for sure”. Perfect knowledge is a divine attribute, and I don’t claim that. I’ve concluded it, based on DeLay’s actions, his comments, and Abramoff’s actions and comments, as well as comments by others, like Willie Tan, who boasted to a friend that DeLay had told him that he would never let any CNMI reform bill come to a vote.
The same Willie Tan that was the recipient of the record DoL fine? The same fine that was imposed under existing laws?
So why do you reject the inference that Delay told Tan this because Delay knew that existing laws were sufficient, if used, to redress these wrongs? Why must it be that he was quasi-bribe-taking and a scum?
And Abramoff was a criminal, and trying to be an influential lobbyist. Why wouldn’t he have a motive to overstate the assurances that Delay gave?
Why, in other words, do you credit the convicted criminal with truthfulness (when he had an obvious motive to lie) and not credit the guy who’s never been convicted of a thing?
Two different questions. First question, is the bill so fatally flawed that it cannot provide relief, on your own authority, you insist that this is so. A reasonable person may well agree, but that has yet to be established beyond your assertion.
Even if it were entirely effective, a reasonable (but evil) person could believe it should not be passed.
What is extraordinarily unlikely is that a reasonable person would decide that this bill was so hideously deformed that it should not even be considered on the House floor, it was so terribly, terribly bad.
What makes it beyond extraordinary is that a reasonable person is expected to conclude that this bill should not even be considered, after it has passed unanimously in the Senate! Stupid, stupid Senators. How many of them are lawyers? Quite a few, I understand. A pity so many of them lack your grasp of the essentials.
His actions being motivated by wisdom is your own conjecture, shared by no one so far.
The standard remedy is to bring it up for considerations and add such amendments as may make it more wholesome. Which, please note, Mr DeLay refused to do. A reasonable cause to vote against a bill is not quite the same as a reasonable cause to refuse it any consideration, the bar is higher for a reasonable person. Even more so as it has universal approval from another legislative branch. Rather an enthusiastic endorsement, unanimity. Or do you disagree? Was it some sort of luke-warm, half-assed unanimous? Something that looks unanimous, but really isn’t?
On the contrary, I would expect a reasonable person, even in disagreement, to defer to such a dramatic concurrence. A gesture of respect, if nothing else.
I have no such conjectures to offer. Why didn’t the House rise in rebellion against Tom “the Wussy” DeLay? Dunno. If you have the answer, I’m sure we are all eager to hear, especially if you have some factual basis to offer.
Oh, by the way, this…
You seem to be sidling up to a tacit admission that Tom DeLay knew about the “problems”. And yet, here is a golden opportunity to take effective action, no? He’s not beholden to this man, only that scoundrel Abramoff is beholden to him, and DeLay barely knows this Abrimov guy! Well, sure, he said “closest and dearest friend”, but that’s just Washington for “haven’t kicked him in balls this week.”
So, why didn’t he? Why didn’t he say “Clean up, or its your ass, and I’ll make sure of it, because the laws are plenty good enough for the likes of you!” Rather than “Don’t worry about these nasty, nasty law, ain’t gonna happen.”
If Mr DeLay knew, and is not scum, and had full faith in the power of the applicable laws, why didn’t he do something more than offer soothing assurances? Seems odd behavior for a paragon.
Because that inference isn’t consistent with DeLay’s actions. When DeLay gave his speech at the Pacific Islands Club, he didn’t say, “You garment companies are exploiting your workers, but existing laws are sufficient to redress the things you’re doing.” He said they were doing God’s work and told them to resist the forces of evil, and that they “represent everything that’s good in what the Republicans are trying to do in America.” This was on an Abramoff paid trip, remember. It was also his aids that pressured CNMI legislators to elect Bengino Fital speaker of the Commonwealth’s House of Reps, and, remember, before Fital got into politics, he was Vice President of Tan Holdings.
I could go on, but DeLay’s actions regarding the CNMI are those of someone shocked and offended by the actions of the garment industry there.
Fascinating topic for discussion, but hardly on point. My question was about his inaction, not about your descriptive powers. Are you playing some sort of drinking game with your friends, so that you win if you change the subject every time you answer a question?
And if you want to go about leering at a fallacy or two, well, I reckon that’s none of my business, so long as you don’t scare the horses.
Sorry, but I accepted no such thing. Having not participated in this discussion previously, I had no obligation whatsoever.
Like you, I suppose, I read the bill and wondered what it had to do with its stated intended goals. So I did a modicum of research and shared the results in the hope of furthering the conversation. Meh, so maybe I’m not so great at Great Debates. My participation in this forum isn’t a contest to me, but rather an opportunity to explore disagreeing views and interact with those who hold them in the hope of refining my own viewpoint. Oh, and sometimes it’s just a means of amusing myself.
The evidence is that this bill was what it was portrayed to be, and that this inflated statement:
is not quite accurate. Honesty would seem to lean the other way. Although you’ve still not explicitly conceded the point, I believe I’ve demonstrated that bill’s sponsors, and others, believed that this bill would have an effect on the abuse of alien workers. Now, it seems, we’re discussing whether it was the best way of doing so.
I’ve already admitted that my knowledge about this was limited enough that I had to do some research to determine exactly why this bill would address that problem. Any opinion I might offer as to the best way to address the issue would be wisely ignored as the uninformed thoughts of someone who googled for 10 minutes on the matter.
Someone? Yes. Tom DeLay? Sure. But I also think that many improbable things are possible, and that there’s no reason not to consider DeLay’s action on this bill in light of other evidence.
Current laws were sufficient? Nice caveat with the “if enforced” bit because clearly a problem existed. If the laws weren’t enforced why weren’t they enforced? How do you fix that? Did DeLay, seeing the clear problems listed in Murkoski’s report, do anything to rectify the situation?
Your big on evidence and so far all the evidence, including candid camera footage of Tan speaking, points to DeLay making sure no one bugs the industry there with bullshit like stopping rape or forced abortions.
Do you have evidence, as you have demanded from us, that DeLay was seeking a solution to the clear problems faced by the workers on Saipan?
I admit I am not up on all the powers of the Speaker or the Whip. Where did I suggest otherwise?
My point is are YOU ok with that rule? A rule that one person can unilaterally kill a bill passed by a branch of Congress. I am NOT asking if they are able to do so. I am asking if you are copacetic with such a rule.
What I find interesting is very recently you were schooling us on how the “best” solution has nothing to to with the law. And this was regarding a Constitutional right which, I would think, is deserving of more scrutiny than just any old law. Indeed you hammered at this point in the other thread repeatedly:
Now here you demand that DeLay is off the hook because a bill was not the “best” means to achieve a given goal. A goal that is not even a Constitutional question.
I’d ask if you were kidding, but … no, no, you’ve said enough to make me believe you’re probably seriously confused.
So:
One discussion has to do with what steps the courts take when analyzing a law for Equal Protection violations. That’s the rational basis test.
The other discussion – this one – has to do with a legislator’s ideas about a law he will, or will not, support.
Those two methods of analysis have nothing to do with one another. Nothing.
If Congress had passed the Murkowski bill, and the President had signed it, and then someone sued because it treated guest workers differently than other guest workers… THEN, sure enough, we’d apply the rational basis law and we’d say that (1) Preventing rape and forced abortions are legitmate government interests, and (2) This bill was in fact rationally related to that goal. So under the rational basis test, yes, this bill would survive.
But that’s not remotely the discussion here. Here the discussion doesn’t involve the Equal Protection Clause. It involves the decision by one lawmaker not to support a law which other lawmakers did support. There is no particular “test” for that, no framework under which the law is analyzed.
One has nothing to do with the other. It’s as though you grabbed things that sound the same and tossed them together. Do you not understand any of the basic concepts in play here? Seriously?