FTR I support filibusters and quorum dodging.
I oppose the abuse of them however which was clearly done in the case of filibusters.
I oppose procedural filibusters, but that isn’t the same as opposing a filibuster in concept. The difference is that the Democrats had to leave the state and stay at a hotel… basically, they had to make a sacrifice and actually put forth some effort.
The Republicans, during their ‘filibuster everything’ minority, basically said repeatedly, “We filibuster this.” and that’s the total effort they had to put in. If that’s the case, then why not just say you need a supermajority to pass ANYTHING and get rid of the filibuster to begin with?
On preview, what WaM said. There’s a difference between use and abuse of a tactic. Now if the republicans actually went through the effort of reading the phone book and talking in shifts like they used to do, I might have more respect for them.
That said, the procedural filibuster is in the rules… and denying a quorum is also within the rules. You can dislike a practice without thinking it’s illegal.
Also, I note that nobody has addressed my first link where Fitzgerald basically admits this has nothing to do with the ‘good of the people’ and everything to do with denying Labor a voice.
This is a popular misconception. The reason for the “procedural” filibuster is because it serves the interests of the majority.
If the majority tried to enforce an actual filibuster, they would have to keep a quorum of their members present, while the minority could get by with only a couple on hand. It would be a lot more wearying for the majority, and they would be the ones putting forth a lot more effort. So as a practical matter, once the minority announces that they intend to filibuster, it’s in the interest of the majority to let the legislation wait rather than attempt to break the filibuster.
Well, his objection is grounded in the open meetings law, which I believe I have already shown is not applicable to senate (or joint committee) meetings as long as the meeting complies with the legislative house rules.
In ordinary parliamentary procedure, this would be considered a point of order, which is a preferential, non-debatable motion. The chair must rule on the motion. A member dissatisfied with the chair’s ruling may appeal the decision of the chair, and the chair’s decision must be sustained by majority of the members present and voting.
So even in ordinary parliamentary procedure analysis, the end result is legit. By this I mean that we can imagine that even if the decision had been appealed, the majority would have sustained the decision.
But this is all moot, because the senate uses their own rules, not Roberts’. And under senate rule 17(2), this is a valid procedure.
In theory, that’s an improvement. In practice, that’s not the way it ended up, since it also allowed the minority to filibuster everything, no matter how minor an issue. I can appreciate the spirit of the attempt, but the intent and how it ended up being used aren’t the same.
How is that relevant to the question of the legality of the process?
I didn’t want you to think I’m ignoring this, but it requires some thought before I can answer…
You said if there was a question of the legality, shouldn’t the law be referenced? However, when there was a question of the legality and the law was referenced, instead of saying that it was not valid(as you are arguing and as may indeed be the case), it was ignored and not addressed. If it was that cut and dried, why didn’t the Republicans answer, “This is not applicable because of x, y, and z, objection denied?”
Oh, I see.
Well, the general rule is that the chair may summarily deny motions that are dilatory or vexatious. I agree it would have been better to say that the open meetings law was inapplicable, but it doesn’t change the result.
Why didn’t they? I imagine they had agreed ahead of time to not be drawn into any further delay tactics. The Democrats were not interested in doing anything except killing the bill - thus their absence from the statehouse and the state. Why should the chair respond to a series of baseless objections?
As a further question(and I’m not trying to be adversarial here, this is an honest curiosity), what do you think of the fact that this non-fiscal bill had provisions in it which are, in fact affecting fiscal matters such as pensions and health insurance costs?
Here is a brief post discussing it: http://uwmasls.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/state-senate-hastily-passes-non-fiscal-budget-repair-bill/
In addition to this, why is it such an emergency to strip collective bargaining rights when it apparently has nothing to do with the budget after all? Aside from the fact that Fitzgerald already answered that it was merely to destroy the Labor Unions and deny them funding.
This, IMO, is the million dollar question being dodged. That and what in the blazing fuck did outlawing mandatory collection of union dues have to do with the budget?
I don’t recall ever posting that the Democrats had no right to try to implement health care reform in 2008. I do remember posting (in 2006) congratulating them for their win, and also in 2008 congratulating Obama on his.
Of course, if you have anything in mind, by all means let’s see it. And I will remind you that saying the other side has bad ideas is very far from suggesting that elections do not have consequences.
Regards,
Shodan
Did they do that? Is Wisconsin a right-to-work state now?
In Virginia, they outlawed collective bargaining at the same time they became right-to-work. Did that happen here? If not, what’s the significance of one without the other?
Took me about 5 seconds to find this.
Looks like sour grapes to me.
No worries :). If you do reply, keep in mind that I’m not saying any of these unintended consequences are fatal to the idea, simply that we ought to consider them, see if they’re legitimate problems, see if there are workarounds, etc.
While I think professional development e.g., getting National Board Certification, is a great was to improve the profession (and anyone who thinks NB certification is a fad is smoking way too much meth), I don’t think it’s the end of the conversation. I’m all about holding teachers accountable. Doctors at hospitals have Morbidity & Mortality reports that are used to hold physicians accountable; I think that education might learn something from those structures.
Trillions of dollars in federal debt, and every state is having a budget crisis. This equals to schools being shut down, thousands losing their jobs and it doesn’t matter if you are liberal, union, republican, Christian or whatever. Get used to it; the economy will take years to recover. The main question for this forum topic asked, ‘is this legal?’, and the answer is yes; it’s over. The same people, who complain here, are still crying that Al Gore lost! Let’s question how much money was lost fighting this battle. In the big picture here Sheeple, we all need to tighten our belts and accept paying more to keep our jobs. The end result is the same. Here in Central Texas, the Austin school district is simply closing schools and firing 1,100+ people. It’s a wave of change across America, either ride it out or sink.
I’m not sure if it was in the final bill passed, but it was in the original.
I had to look up more info on right to work states. I was under the impression that if you’re in the union, you pay dues. And this was a first of it’s kind attempt to break unions by cutting off their cash flow. Apparently, that’s not the case and other states have similar provisions.
After reading a bit about right to work, I understand (and agree with) not being forced to join a union. However, I can’t see the rational for outlawing mandatory collection of dues for those in the union.
Unless, of course, you’re rich. Then you get tax breaks, because making people who have stuff sacrifice is unamerican. The poor need to tighten their belts!
Under those conditions, wouldn’t you agree it is the last time you want to pass tax cuts for the wealthy, which just makes the budget crisis worse? Yet that is exactly what Gov. Walker did as soon as he took office.
Everyone has to tighten their belts. Saying the poor are worse off is an old comment that is silly. If one doesn’t like the tax laws, vote for someone who will change them! I believe it’s unAmerican to force anyone to do anything they don’t want to without harming others, we agree there. The problem is, it’s NOT American to sit there with our hands out for every government program, and expect the Feds to give us everything. The founding fathers, are turning in their graves! :smack: