They aren’t doing anything illegal. Were you of the opinion that Republicans who filibustered were doing something wrong? I think the abuse of the filibuster was rancid because they did it on everything. This is about one specific issue that will viscerally wound unions.
They are utilizing a loophole to enact the public will. As I say they can be recalled if the populace finds them derelict in their duties.
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
The people in Wisconsin are fairly strongly against this law. The law (at least the collective bargaining portion) wasn’t something Walker ran on. So a solid majority really want it to not pass.
[/QUOTE]
Which is why we have a process to overturn such things, right? If the people REALLY don’t want something, then they will make their collective voice felt in the next election and the situation will get rectified…right?
I wonder if the people supporting this would feel the same if the shoe was on the other foot and it was a Democratic majority trying to get a quorum, while a Republican minority used similar tactics to block what they felt the majority of people ACTUALLY wanted.
-XT
never said they were doing anything illegal. I said that what they’re doing isn’t consistent with a democratic form of government. fillibustering (while I would share in your characterization of it as rancid and retarded) is a component of a legislative assembly. it shouldn’t, but it is.
not showing up to do something that you were elected to do - and which comprises the very essence of a democratic form of government - is not.
and I’m not sure why you feel that recalling absentee legislators is a valid response, but somehow overturning enacted legislation by subsequent recall or election isn’t really good enough.
Of course I’d prefer if a Democratic bill were being enacted, since in general Democrats have policies that are based in the way things work in this universe. 
But of course I’d be chufting if a policy I preferred were being stymied. But that doesn’t mean that the opposing side is doing something evil. They’re risking recall, every single one of them.
By blocking the anti-union legislation, they are representing the majority of their constituency.
Also, it seems to me that the only just way to recall a specific legislator is to look to his or her constituents.
So, again, you’re faced with the ultimate exercise in minority rule: not only is it a valid democratic tool to not show up (which I don’t think it is, but you do), but the only people who can stop that are the subset of people in a minority who lost out on this legislator being elected.
Let me put it this way: do you think it’s a valid exercise of democracy to a) require a quorum of 100% of all elected legislators, and b) form an electoral district that consists solely of people who would elect a contrarian (vis-a-vis the majority of the polity) legislator?
you can’t actually represent a constituency if you’re not engaged in the legislative process…
Stopping it before being enacted would likely be better because if you hamstring Unions (which is exactly what Walker wants, not budget reform) you lessen the ability of Democratic legislators to be elected. If this passes and it starts cascading across the country it could take decades, if ever for unions to reassert.
And the only thing standing between corporations and utter dominance of the American political system is unions.
The shoe usually is on the other foot with the federal Senate filibuster. I don’t like it, but there was no traction among the electeds to change it. It is legal and allowed by the rules and respected. The dems in this case had better be right or their constituents will throw them out of office. I suspect that it is more likely than not that come recall time and next election it will be Republicans who will be thrown out of office. In Texas hold 'em language, both sides are “all in”. Personally I’m glad of it. I don’t live in Wisconsin and I’m glad my state economy is not at risk. But I’m tired of Democrats just backing down on everything
Says who?
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
But of course I’d be chufting if a policy I preferred were being stymied. But that doesn’t mean that the opposing side is doing something evil. They’re risking recall, every single one of them.
[/QUOTE]
They do…and they aren’t doing anything illegal or even circumventing the system. I haven’t got a major problem with what they are doing (mostly because I don’t live in Wisconsin, and don’t have to worry about a huge deficit). Just want to be clear here that the worm turns, and that this sort of thing can and will be used by both sides (has been in fact)…and that sometimes it will be used to oppose stuff you and others might agree with.
I don’t have a dog in this fight since, like I said, I’m not from Wisconsin, nor do I live there…nor do I have to put up with their problems or issues. I actually work for the government, and am not nor have I ever been in a union, though I have a lot of family who have been or are in unions.
-XT
uh, sure. okay.
Scott Walker will enact this completely egregious law, the stopping of which is justifiable by any means necessary including active disengagement from the democratic process, but once it’s enacted, oh shit, everyone will run around neutered and powerless to stop it.
please.
so you wouldn’t give two shits if your senator took a 6 year vacation to Bora Bora and never showed up? (ignore Congress actually taking it upon itself to police and maintain the democratic process)
What does that have to do with using a procedural rule to block anti-union legislation?
it has to do with my assertion that to represent someone in a democratic body, you actually have to… represent.
again, I’ll ask you now. Do you think it is a valid form of democracy if body rules required 100% attendance for a quorum, and therefore a tiny minority of constituents can completely negate the democratic process? is this what a proper exercise of democratic power looks like to you?
First, I’m saying that they are utilizing a current option in their state’s constitution. So if you’re against this, I suggest you lobby for a change to the constitution.
Allow me to map this out that way I see it. It might be wrong, but bear with:
[ul]
[li]Unions get hamstrung by Walker. This spreads to other states.[/li][li]Union membership goes down (because why pay dues if you can’t bargain). [/li][li]Union coffers dry up.[/li][li]Next election, corporations (thanks to Citizens United) have no opposition in their spending. There is no union money to counter it. [/li][li]Republican control. This increases every election and you’re insane if you think the 21st century Republican would ever allow collective bargaining to reassert.[/li][/ul]
So saying that they can just turn it around later with Democratic legislatures doesn’t seem like it is very likely.
My opinion differs from yours. Blocking legislation that a majority of your constituents oppose is a legitimate form of representation.
if the people represented by unions are going to be so egregiously harmed by this law, then I imagine points 3, 4, and 5 are irrelevant in terms of getting the law repealed.
as for unions being egregiously harmed (but not actual citizens). who gives a shit?
except you’re not actually representing anyone. you can’t. since you’re not in the legislative body. dig?
I’d really like an answer to my hypo, from either of youse…