In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On October 14 2013 07:57 Gorsameth wrote: Surely changing the rules of the House takes at least a 2/3 majority which the Republicans dont have. So how did this get changed Oo
The rules can be changed by a simple majority in both the House and Senate. The possibility of the latter is what is normally referred to as the "nuclear option": i.e. the majority in the Senate could get around the necessity to have 60 votes to end a filibuster by simply changing the rules regarding cloture with 51 votes, but senators are generally loathe to do so since they respect tradition (and just not being psychotic in general) more than the House
... Wow....
Thought it was hard to have a lower opinion of the US democratic system but to allow a mere majority to change fundamental rules of democracy is beyond reason.
Pretty sure its 51 in the senate only on the first day of the session, then it needs 2/3. House seems to just be a majority any time. Overall tho, the minority party in the house can't do much at all other than make noise. Minor rules changes here and there are not going to do much to change the status quo. In the senate tho, some of the proposed rules changes would drastically change things which is why it is a much bigger deal.
One of the most basic rules of any parliament I know of is that the minority at least can propose laws/bills. The majority might vote them down every time, but they should at least be able to propose their bill to get it into public record. Frankly I haven't been the greatest fan of the US system in a bit (the entire concept of Gerrymandering makes me shake my head, if you want to have personal representation (something I actually like) the districts should be set by at least a semi-neutral party) but the current situation really blows my mind. I don't think I've ever seen any similar institution throw away billions simply out of spite before...
On October 14 2013 07:57 Gorsameth wrote: Surely changing the rules of the House takes at least a 2/3 majority which the Republicans dont have. So how did this get changed Oo
The rules can be changed by a simple majority in both the House and Senate. The possibility of the latter is what is normally referred to as the "nuclear option": i.e. the majority in the Senate could get around the necessity to have 60 votes to end a filibuster by simply changing the rules regarding cloture with 51 votes, but senators are generally loathe to do so since they respect tradition (and just not being psychotic in general) more than the House
... Wow....
Thought it was hard to have a lower opinion of the US democratic system but to allow a mere majority to change fundamental rules of democracy is beyond reason.
Pretty sure its 51 in the senate only on the first day of the session, then it needs 2/3. House seems to just be a majority any time. Overall tho, the minority party in the house can't do much at all other than make noise. Minor rules changes here and there are not going to do much to change the status quo. In the senate tho, some of the proposed rules changes would drastically change things which is why it is a much bigger deal.
One of the most basic rules of any parliament I know of is that the minority at least can propose laws/bills. The majority might vote them down every time, but they should at least be able to propose their bill to get it into public record. Frankly I haven't been the greatest fan of the US system in a bit (the entire concept of Gerrymandering makes me shake my head, if you want to have personal representation (something I actually like) the districts should be set by at least a semi-neutral party) but the current situation really blows my mind. I don't think I've ever seen any similar institution throw away billions simply out of spite before...
Its not spite. To the far right, the last election confirmed that they, the 'real Americans' who arent 'takers' are the minority and they will never win in either the Senate or the Presidential elections. So bringing the system down is the only way they can 'reset' America, by depriving all the 'moochers' that Democrats bought off with things like education and welfare and warm breakfasts for the poor and give the 'real Americans' a chance to 'present the issues' without worrying about someone being 'bought of by the evil and corrupting state'
The irony of this all is of course that the far right was primarily funded by the the ultra rich who just want more tax cuts, and now that their own wealth is genuinely being threatened they are just as pissed off at the Tea Party as the liberals.
Federal judges, long used to being blasted as “judicial activists” by members of Congress, are now directing a stream of anger and vitriol right back at Capitol Hill.
Driving judges’ ire: the budget austerity and chaos lawmakers have imposed on the judiciary. Jurists say funding for the courts has already been cut to the bone by way of sequestration — and now the government shutdown has added insult to injury, leaving the government’s third branch running on fumes that likely won’t last out the week.
“It is time to tell Congress to go to hell,” Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf wrote on his blog last week. “It’s the right thing to do.”
On October 14 2013 07:57 Gorsameth wrote: Surely changing the rules of the House takes at least a 2/3 majority which the Republicans dont have. So how did this get changed Oo
The rules can be changed by a simple majority in both the House and Senate. The possibility of the latter is what is normally referred to as the "nuclear option": i.e. the majority in the Senate could get around the necessity to have 60 votes to end a filibuster by simply changing the rules regarding cloture with 51 votes, but senators are generally loathe to do so since they respect tradition (and just not being psychotic in general) more than the House
... Wow....
Thought it was hard to have a lower opinion of the US democratic system but to allow a mere majority to change fundamental rules of democracy is beyond reason.
Pretty sure its 51 in the senate only on the first day of the session, then it needs 2/3. House seems to just be a majority any time. Overall tho, the minority party in the house can't do much at all other than make noise. Minor rules changes here and there are not going to do much to change the status quo. In the senate tho, some of the proposed rules changes would drastically change things which is why it is a much bigger deal.
Changing who is allowed to bring a bill to vote isn't a "minor" change.
On October 14 2013 07:57 Gorsameth wrote: Surely changing the rules of the House takes at least a 2/3 majority which the Republicans dont have. So how did this get changed Oo
The rules can be changed by a simple majority in both the House and Senate. The possibility of the latter is what is normally referred to as the "nuclear option": i.e. the majority in the Senate could get around the necessity to have 60 votes to end a filibuster by simply changing the rules regarding cloture with 51 votes, but senators are generally loathe to do so since they respect tradition (and just not being psychotic in general) more than the House
... Wow....
Thought it was hard to have a lower opinion of the US democratic system but to allow a mere majority to change fundamental rules of democracy is beyond reason.
Pretty sure its 51 in the senate only on the first day of the session, then it needs 2/3. House seems to just be a majority any time. Overall tho, the minority party in the house can't do much at all other than make noise. Minor rules changes here and there are not going to do much to change the status quo. In the senate tho, some of the proposed rules changes would drastically change things which is why it is a much bigger deal.
That seems... like a questionable practice to say the least O_o
Federal judges, long used to being blasted as “judicial activists” by members of Congress, are now directing a stream of anger and vitriol right back at Capitol Hill.
Driving judges’ ire: the budget austerity and chaos lawmakers have imposed on the judiciary. Jurists say funding for the courts has already been cut to the bone by way of sequestration — and now the government shutdown has added insult to injury, leaving the government’s third branch running on fumes that likely won’t last out the week.
“It is time to tell Congress to go to hell,” Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf wrote on his blog last week. “It’s the right thing to do.”
I didn't think the rules changing was that significant. More about times for cloture and things like that. The main issue I've heard is getting rid of the talking filibuster, which has just made everything more bullshit.
On October 14 2013 21:53 DoubleReed wrote: I didn't think the rules changing was that significant. More about times for cloture and things like that. The main issue I've heard is getting rid of the talking filibuster, which has just made everything more bullshit.
How is completely shutting out 434 members of the House from proposing legislation not significant. How is giving sole power of the house and the ability to take that power away to one and the same person not significant.
It is now impossible to do anything in the House without the approval of the majority leader regardless of the opinion of the remaining 434 members.
On October 14 2013 21:53 DoubleReed wrote: I didn't think the rules changing was that significant. More about times for cloture and things like that. The main issue I've heard is getting rid of the talking filibuster, which has just made everything more bullshit.
How is completely shutting out 434 members of the House from proposing legislation not significant. How is giving sole power of the house and the ability to take that power away to one and the same person not significant.
It is now impossible to do anything in the House without the approval of the majority leader regardless of the opinion of the remaining 434 members.
I'm more expressing my surprise at rules abuse. Like the power of rules changing isn't supposed to be that big a deal. Suddenly there's abuse. Was there anything like this before?
The post did a nice peice on the history of government shutdowns in america. Spoiler alert the tipper and the gipper were involved in a lot of them.
As long as we don't last over 380 some days we're still doing a better job at keeping a government running as the Dutch who currently hold the world record for longest period of time between governments.
s. At the heart of the current rebels’ ideology is the anti-Washington credo of nullification, codified by the South Carolina politician John C. Calhoun in the 1830s and rarely lacking for avid followers ever since. Our inability to accept the anti-government right’s persistence is in part an astonishing case of denial. The Gingrich revolution, the Ur-text for this fall’s events, took place less than twenty years ago and yet was at best foggily remembered as the current calamity unfolded. There’s also a certain liberal snobbery at play: We don’t know any of these radicals, do we?
The Cliff is coming, fellas. On Thursday this whole game of chicken comes to an end, one way or another. Like Toonces, the cat who could drive a car, will the good folks of the House drive the country off of it? I am of course referring to the impending default on US government debt. The Republicans are already asking, "would it really be such a bad thing?"
On October 14 2013 21:53 DoubleReed wrote: I didn't think the rules changing was that significant. More about times for cloture and things like that. The main issue I've heard is getting rid of the talking filibuster, which has just made everything more bullshit.
How is a rule change that stops the government from opening again not 'that significant'? Democrats and Republicans have enough votes in the House to reopen the government. The Republican leaders responsible for the shutdown know it and that's exactly why the change was put in place.
The post did a nice peice on the history of government shutdowns in america. Spoiler alert the tipper and the gipper were involved in a lot of them.
As long as we don't last over 380 some days we're still doing a better job at keeping a government running as the Dutch who currently hold the world record for longest period of time between governments.
Belgium does not us. Our government just reached an agreement on the budget of next year anyway. Edit: and the difference between the US and other countries is that we have no shutdown or debt ceiling.
The post did a nice peice on the history of government shutdowns in america. Spoiler alert the tipper and the gipper were involved in a lot of them.
As long as we don't last over 380 some days we're still doing a better job at keeping a government running as the Dutch who currently hold the world record for longest period of time between governments.
Actually it's Belgium, and Belgium still had the previous federal government operating (it could simply not pass funding for new major projects) while negotiations were going on to form a new one. It was absolutely nothing like the US shutdown.
The post did a nice peice on the history of government shutdowns in america. Spoiler alert the tipper and the gipper were involved in a lot of them.
As long as we don't last over 380 some days we're still doing a better job at keeping a government running as the Dutch who currently hold the world record for longest period of time between governments.
There is the small fact of difference between governments and how they work. It is Belgium I guess, not Dutch, and lack of government there does not mean (unless they have very un-EU system) that bureaucracy stops working. I doubt their judiciary or parks are shutting down.
On October 14 2013 21:53 DoubleReed wrote: I didn't think the rules changing was that significant. More about times for cloture and things like that. The main issue I've heard is getting rid of the talking filibuster, which has just made everything more bullshit.
How is completely shutting out 434 members of the House from proposing legislation not significant. How is giving sole power of the house and the ability to take that power away to one and the same person not significant.
It is now impossible to do anything in the House without the approval of the majority leader regardless of the opinion of the remaining 434 members.
I'm more expressing my surprise at rules abuse. Like the power of rules changing isn't supposed to be that big a deal. Suddenly there's abuse. Was there anything like this before?
On October 14 2013 07:57 Gorsameth wrote: Surely changing the rules of the House takes at least a 2/3 majority which the Republicans dont have. So how did this get changed Oo
The rules can be changed by a simple majority in both the House and Senate. The possibility of the latter is what is normally referred to as the "nuclear option": i.e. the majority in the Senate could get around the necessity to have 60 votes to end a filibuster by simply changing the rules regarding cloture with 51 votes, but senators are generally loathe to do so since they respect tradition (and just not being psychotic in general) more than the House
... Wow....
Thought it was hard to have a lower opinion of the US democratic system but to allow a mere majority to change fundamental rules of democracy is beyond reason.
It's pretty common parliamentary procedure though...the UK for example is the same.
On October 14 2013 07:57 Gorsameth wrote: Surely changing the rules of the House takes at least a 2/3 majority which the Republicans dont have. So how did this get changed Oo
The rules can be changed by a simple majority in both the House and Senate. The possibility of the latter is what is normally referred to as the "nuclear option": i.e. the majority in the Senate could get around the necessity to have 60 votes to end a filibuster by simply changing the rules regarding cloture with 51 votes, but senators are generally loathe to do so since they respect tradition (and just not being psychotic in general) more than the House
... Wow....
Thought it was hard to have a lower opinion of the US democratic system but to allow a mere majority to change fundamental rules of democracy is beyond reason.
It's pretty common parliamentary procedure though...the UK for example is the same.
The UK, the country that actually lacks a constitution? When you have to compare the US (the country of eternal constitution humping) with the country that doesn't even have one to find comparable behaviour you're probably not doing too good on your principles.
Edit: And it's not common parilamentary procedure. I'm doubtful it even is in the UK.
On October 14 2013 07:57 Gorsameth wrote: Surely changing the rules of the House takes at least a 2/3 majority which the Republicans dont have. So how did this get changed Oo
The rules can be changed by a simple majority in both the House and Senate. The possibility of the latter is what is normally referred to as the "nuclear option": i.e. the majority in the Senate could get around the necessity to have 60 votes to end a filibuster by simply changing the rules regarding cloture with 51 votes, but senators are generally loathe to do so since they respect tradition (and just not being psychotic in general) more than the House
... Wow....
Thought it was hard to have a lower opinion of the US democratic system but to allow a mere majority to change fundamental rules of democracy is beyond reason.
It's pretty common parliamentary procedure though...the UK for example is the same.
The UK, the country that actually lacks a constitution? When you have to compare the US (the country of eternal constitution humping) with the country that doesn't even have one to find comparable behaviour you're probably not doing too good on your principles.
Edit: And it's not common parilamentary procedure. I'm doubtful it even is in the UK.
The UK is even more stringent that a majority can change the rules at any time, since the one thing they can't do is change to rules so it takes anything other than a simple majority to change the rules!
With all of the problems that Obamacare is having getting off the ground, I'm kinda surprised that no republican group has filed a lawsuit to seek an injunction against enforcement of the individual mandate, thereby getting a delay of the individual mandate judicially. I'm no expert in the field, but I find it hard to believe that a law can be enforced where it is impossible for individuals to comply with its terms due to the government's own failures.
EPT
