A bill dealing with floods is going through the legislature and someone attaches a fucking anti-abortion bit to it?
Before anyone suggests I would be ok with such a move if it were something I agreed with let me stipulate that I most certainly am not. I am no fan of riders to bills and think there should be a constitutional amendment preventing such things…whatever their stripe.
If your agenda (whatever it is) cannot be passed on its own then that should be the end of it. No latching it on to some other piece of legislation that is wholly unrelated to whatever it is that you are trying to push.
Yes, I know BOTH reps and dems do it. This happens to be a rep and an egregious example but not like he is the first (or last) to do it. It should be stopped.
Like we need another example of how fucked up congress is.
Sure. The amendment has to be first, allowed, and second, voted on. So, first, the Senate leadership has to allow the amendment to even be voted on, which Reid doesn’t seem to want to happen (and which the leadership of this Senate tends not to do much), and then the amendment needs to be voted on and passed before it can be attached to the bill.
There’s basically no way this amendment is going to get onto the bill, and I think Paul knows that.
I think the reason for this, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that once a bill is opened for amendments, it can go on forever unless cloture is invoked, which the Dems don’t have the votes to accomplsih. So adding amendments is just one more way that Republicans were filibustering.
Jon Stewart recently interviewed Marco Rubio, Florida’s tea-party U.S. senator, and Stewart asked about the amendment dealio. Rubio said that since the majority would not allow any Republican bills to come to the floor for a vote, they are forced to offer their legislation as amendments to unrelated issues.
This gentleman and scholar attempted the same thing with the post office bill and defunding aid to Egypt. He’s a senator from Texas. Assuming he’s sufficiently familiar with John Galt, he’ll probably be up there challenging Byrd’s tenure.
So people cannot lose their children in a flood?</sarchasm off>
This has always been a peeve of mine. People hide laws in proposed laws that have nothing to do with the Laws Title.
There should be a law that says the only content of a proposed law must be relevant to the title. Of course, they would hide some other law in that law to magnify irony
It was great watching Marco Rubio’s interview the same with the contrast of Harry Reid’s speach.
Marco Rubio was basically arguing the Republicans fillibuster so many bills because they are protesting not being allowed to amend them with their own ideas.
Harry Reid was flipping out in his oh so ineffective manner by not actually conveying any emotion about Rand Paul’s attempt at adding the life from conception amendment.
Just maybe the Democrats won’t let the Republicans add amendments because they pull stupid shit like this.