|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
Ok so the hasart rule isn't a real rule because its an informal policy followed by speakers of the house. Its like that because a speaker of the house doesn't want to risk his leadership position by bringing a bill to the floor that would piss off the part of his base thats the difference between him being speaker of the house and not. Speakers control what gets to the floor so effectively its a rule that the speaker will only bring bills to the floor that he has his party behind him for. Theres an exemption to this as you mention but it would piss off leadership and if they had the votes anyway the leadership would probably do it anyway.
Its one of those things that doesn't really have a start date but just came along and now its tradition enough for it to become a practical rule on how things work in congress. I don't know why you felt the need to explain how akward it is for someone whos spent this much time in the us politics thread and doesn't understand how congress works.
|
On February 15 2018 16:18 Sermokala wrote:
Ok so the hasart rule isn't a real rule because its an informal policy followed by speakers of the house. Its like that because a speaker of the house doesn't want to risk his leadership position by bringing a bill to the floor that would piss off the part of his base thats the difference between him being speaker of the house and not. Speakers control what gets to the floor so effectively its a rule that the speaker will only bring bills to the floor that he has his party behind him for. Theres an exemption to this as you mention but it would piss off leadership and if they had the votes anyway the leadership would probably do it anyway.
Its one of those things that doesn't really have a start date but just came along and now its tradition enough for it to become a practical rule on how things work in congress. I don't know why you felt the need to explain how akward it is for someone whos spent this much time in the us politics thread and doesn't understand how congress works.
I don't even know if plansix was talking about that informal policy because he didn't answer. Additionally Wolf stepped in to assert it was the Hastert rule, but here's what P6 actually said:
On February 15 2018 14:22 Plansix wrote:
The key thing you understand is since 2001, the speaker of the house must approve any bill that comes to the floor for a vote. Even if every member of the house supported it, the speaker must approve. Prior to this rule, a majority vote could bring a bill to the floor for debate.
He doesn't say "a majority vote of Republicans" but it sounds like he's talking about the Hastert rule being replaced with a new rule.
If he means simply that a majority vote could bring a bill to the floor before 2001 we need to see that rule, because we still haven't seen it.
If he's talking about the Hastert Rule as the "new rule" then it's not at all what he described.
Between the last issue I had with p6 on something like this, that I'm not sure what this has to do with the points I raised before it, and that wolf seems to have confused us both, that is what I find awkward
EDIT: The only part of that part of the post that is mostly accurate is
the speaker of the house must approve any bill that comes to the floor
Which to my knowledge while not being strictly true, is how it's been long before 2001.
|
I didn't think it was obvious, I had to look it up as well. But the wiki link seems to cover most of the details.
It's new because, while based on the formalities and processes that have been long established, it wasn't until Hastert (technically Gingrich?) basically took those formalities and found he controlled what Bills could be brought to the House floor.
In other words, prior to Hastert every other Speaker accepted the formality of their role and brought forth all Bills that had a majority House vote, regardless of the makeup of the parties voting it forward.
With Hastert, and since, the opposite has been become the standing policy of the Speakers. I don't see the exact date this started, but the marked date seems to be definitively during Hastert's time as Speaker from 1999-2007.
|
On February 15 2018 16:58 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I didn't think it was obvious, I had to look it up as well. But the wiki link seems to cover most of the details.
It's new because, while based on the formalities and processes that have been long established, it wasn't until Hastert (technically Gingrich?) basically took those formalities and found he controlled what Bills could be brought to the House floor.
In other words, prior to Hastert every other Speaker accepted the formality of their role and brought forth all Bills that had a majority House vote, regardless of the makeup of the parties voting it forward.
With Hastert, and since, the opposite has been become the standing policy of the Speakers. I don't see the exact date this started, but the marked date seems to be definitively during Hastert's time as Speaker from 1999-2007.
I asked the question and you responded with:
On February 15 2018 14:36 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 14:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 14:22 Plansix wrote:
The key thing you understand is since 2001, the speaker of the house must approve any bill that comes to the floor for a vote. Even if every member of the house supported it, the speaker must approve. Prior to this rule, a majority vote could bring a bill to the floor for debate.
Since the speaker holds all the power, it only takes a small faction within his party to assure nothing gets done. Because they can push to remove him. Or tank other bills.
Not suprising, congress has become less productive every year since this rule went bit place. Because it make the minority powerless to the reasonable members of the majority. Which rule is that? "The key thing you understand is since 2001, the speaker of the house must approve any bill that comes to the floor for a vote."
Sure looks like you were implying it was obvious...
Moving on from that... I don't feel there's a reason to continue on whether there's a way to twist both p6's words and the history of the house to make the Hastert Rule fit into the confines of his post until or unless he says that's what he meant in the first place.
Then we can figure out why it mattered to the points I was raising beforehand.
EDIT: Are you under the impression that Pelosi operated using the Hastert rule?
|
On February 15 2018 17:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 16:58 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I didn't think it was obvious, I had to look it up as well. But the wiki link seems to cover most of the details.
It's new because, while based on the formalities and processes that have been long established, it wasn't until Hastert (technically Gingrich?) basically took those formalities and found he controlled what Bills could be brought to the House floor.
In other words, prior to Hastert every other Speaker accepted the formality of their role and brought forth all Bills that had a majority House vote, regardless of the makeup of the parties voting it forward.
With Hastert, and since, the opposite has been become the standing policy of the Speakers. I don't see the exact date this started, but the marked date seems to be definitively during Hastert's time as Speaker from 1999-2007. I asked the question and you responded with: Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 14:36 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 14:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 14:22 Plansix wrote:
The key thing you understand is since 2001, the speaker of the house must approve any bill that comes to the floor for a vote. Even if every member of the house supported it, the speaker must approve. Prior to this rule, a majority vote could bring a bill to the floor for debate.
Since the speaker holds all the power, it only takes a small faction within his party to assure nothing gets done. Because they can push to remove him. Or tank other bills.
Not suprising, congress has become less productive every year since this rule went bit place. Because it make the minority powerless to the reasonable members of the majority. Which rule is that? "The key thing you understand is since 2001, the speaker of the house must approve any bill that comes to the floor for a vote." Sure looks like you were implying it was obvious...
I legitimately thought you missed that part saying why a bill wouldn't be brought to the floor.
EDIT: Are you under the impression that Pelosi operated using the Hastert rule?
According to Wiki, she "broke" the rule about as much as Boehner did. No idea what that amounts to compared to Bills that were blocked for either one, though.
But considering her reputation over it, it's fairly clear the Hastert Rule is now the norm.
|
On February 15 2018 17:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 17:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 16:58 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I didn't think it was obvious, I had to look it up as well. But the wiki link seems to cover most of the details.
It's new because, while based on the formalities and processes that have been long established, it wasn't until Hastert (technically Gingrich?) basically took those formalities and found he controlled what Bills could be brought to the House floor.
In other words, prior to Hastert every other Speaker accepted the formality of their role and brought forth all Bills that had a majority House vote, regardless of the makeup of the parties voting it forward.
With Hastert, and since, the opposite has been become the standing policy of the Speakers. I don't see the exact date this started, but the marked date seems to be definitively during Hastert's time as Speaker from 1999-2007. I asked the question and you responded with: On February 15 2018 14:36 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 14:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 14:22 Plansix wrote:
The key thing you understand is since 2001, the speaker of the house must approve any bill that comes to the floor for a vote. Even if every member of the house supported it, the speaker must approve. Prior to this rule, a majority vote could bring a bill to the floor for debate.
Since the speaker holds all the power, it only takes a small faction within his party to assure nothing gets done. Because they can push to remove him. Or tank other bills.
Not suprising, congress has become less productive every year since this rule went bit place. Because it make the minority powerless to the reasonable members of the majority. Which rule is that? "The key thing you understand is since 2001, the speaker of the house must approve any bill that comes to the floor for a vote." Sure looks like you were implying it was obvious... I legitimately thought you missed that part saying why a bill wouldn't be brought to the floor. Show nested quote +EDIT: Are you under the impression that Pelosi operated using the Hastert rule? According to Wiki, she "broke" the rule about as much as Boehner did. No idea what that amounts to compared to Bills that were blocked for either one, though. But considering her reputation over it, it's fairly clear the Hastert Rule is now the norm.
But the hastert rule is about the majority of the majority, not the speaker choosing what goes. If "The Hastert Rule is now the norm" that would mean that the majority of the majority dictates what comes to the floor, not the speaker alone, potentially against a majority of his caucus.
EDIT: Before you consider going on about how it is I, not you, that is misunderstanding the Hastert Rule, remember you had to google it and are referencing it's wikipage for your understanding of it's history and we're not even sure that's what he was talking about, even if you've fully committed to believing that it definitely is and it's not an inaccurate description despite your lack of familiarity with the subject matter.
|
On February 15 2018 17:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 17:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 17:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 16:58 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I didn't think it was obvious, I had to look it up as well. But the wiki link seems to cover most of the details.
It's new because, while based on the formalities and processes that have been long established, it wasn't until Hastert (technically Gingrich?) basically took those formalities and found he controlled what Bills could be brought to the House floor.
In other words, prior to Hastert every other Speaker accepted the formality of their role and brought forth all Bills that had a majority House vote, regardless of the makeup of the parties voting it forward.
With Hastert, and since, the opposite has been become the standing policy of the Speakers. I don't see the exact date this started, but the marked date seems to be definitively during Hastert's time as Speaker from 1999-2007. I asked the question and you responded with: On February 15 2018 14:36 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 14:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 14:22 Plansix wrote:
The key thing you understand is since 2001, the speaker of the house must approve any bill that comes to the floor for a vote. Even if every member of the house supported it, the speaker must approve. Prior to this rule, a majority vote could bring a bill to the floor for debate.
Since the speaker holds all the power, it only takes a small faction within his party to assure nothing gets done. Because they can push to remove him. Or tank other bills.
Not suprising, congress has become less productive every year since this rule went bit place. Because it make the minority powerless to the reasonable members of the majority. Which rule is that? "The key thing you understand is since 2001, the speaker of the house must approve any bill that comes to the floor for a vote." Sure looks like you were implying it was obvious... I legitimately thought you missed that part saying why a bill wouldn't be brought to the floor. EDIT: Are you under the impression that Pelosi operated using the Hastert rule? According to Wiki, she "broke" the rule about as much as Boehner did. No idea what that amounts to compared to Bills that were blocked for either one, though. But considering her reputation over it, it's fairly clear the Hastert Rule is now the norm. But the hastert rule is about the majority of the majority, not the speaker choosing what goes. If "The Hastert Rule is now the norm" that would mean that the majority of the majority dictates what comes to the floor, not the speaker alone, potentially against a majority of his caucus.
The Hastert Rule is the policy of the then Speaker of the House declaring which Bills he would allow to be put to a vote.
The "majority of the majority" was the guideline he used.
Hastert also apparently broke that policy 12 times while he was Speaker (so obviously against the majority of his own caucus).
So basically it was (and is) entirely up to the Speaker which Bills come to vote, up until enough House members get annoyed at them.
|
On February 15 2018 17:36 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 17:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 17:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 17:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 16:58 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I didn't think it was obvious, I had to look it up as well. But the wiki link seems to cover most of the details.
It's new because, while based on the formalities and processes that have been long established, it wasn't until Hastert (technically Gingrich?) basically took those formalities and found he controlled what Bills could be brought to the House floor.
In other words, prior to Hastert every other Speaker accepted the formality of their role and brought forth all Bills that had a majority House vote, regardless of the makeup of the parties voting it forward.
With Hastert, and since, the opposite has been become the standing policy of the Speakers. I don't see the exact date this started, but the marked date seems to be definitively during Hastert's time as Speaker from 1999-2007. I asked the question and you responded with: On February 15 2018 14:36 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 14:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 14:22 Plansix wrote:
The key thing you understand is since 2001, the speaker of the house must approve any bill that comes to the floor for a vote. Even if every member of the house supported it, the speaker must approve. Prior to this rule, a majority vote could bring a bill to the floor for debate.
Since the speaker holds all the power, it only takes a small faction within his party to assure nothing gets done. Because they can push to remove him. Or tank other bills.
Not suprising, congress has become less productive every year since this rule went bit place. Because it make the minority powerless to the reasonable members of the majority. Which rule is that? "The key thing you understand is since 2001, the speaker of the house must approve any bill that comes to the floor for a vote." Sure looks like you were implying it was obvious... I legitimately thought you missed that part saying why a bill wouldn't be brought to the floor. EDIT: Are you under the impression that Pelosi operated using the Hastert rule? According to Wiki, she "broke" the rule about as much as Boehner did. No idea what that amounts to compared to Bills that were blocked for either one, though. But considering her reputation over it, it's fairly clear the Hastert Rule is now the norm. But the hastert rule is about the majority of the majority, not the speaker choosing what goes. If "The Hastert Rule is now the norm" that would mean that the majority of the majority dictates what comes to the floor, not the speaker alone, potentially against a majority of his caucus. The Hastert Rule is the policy of the then Speaker of the House declaring which Bills he would allow to be put to a vote. The "majority of the majority" was the guideline he used. Hastert also apparently broke that policy 12 times while he was Speaker. So basically it was (and is) entirely up to the Speaker which Bills come to vote, up until enough House members get annoyed at them.
I tried to help you.
No, the Hastert Rule is not
the policy of the then Speaker of the House declaring which Bills he would allow to be put to a vote
please ask someone on twitter that you trust or something to tell you what the hastert rule is.
So basically it was (and is) entirely up to the Speaker which Bills come to vote, up until enough House members get annoyed at them.
That's how it was before the Hastert Rule and after and is not what plansix described when he said
On February 15 2018 14:22 Plansix wrote:
The key thing you understand is since 2001, the speaker of the house must approve any bill that comes to the floor for a vote. Even if every member of the house supported it, the speaker must approve. Prior to this rule, a majority vote could bring a bill to the floor for debate.
Someone like Farv please explain that I'm not just being a jerk about this so it can stop.
|
Quoting this part because it's really the only relevant one:
On February 15 2018 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
That's how it was before the Hastert Rule and after
This is clearly where the disconnect is.
As I said earlier, apparently all Speakers pre-Gingrich had the power to deny Bill votes, but never did so, probably because they actually respected the role. Apparently Gingrich did it first (according to this cited article), but I don't know why it was less notable for him. Maybe nothing important happened while he was Speaker. Either way, the rule is named after Hastert for his role from 1999-2007.
So, Speaker of the Houses blocking Bills from the House floor is new.
Edit: Sorry, linked the wrong article.
|
On February 15 2018 17:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:Quoting this part because it's really the only relevant one: Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
That's how it was before the Hastert Rule and after This is clearly where the disconnect is. As I said earlier, apparently all Speakers pre-Gingrich had the power to deny Bill votes, but never did so, probably because they actually respected the role. Apparently Gingrich did it first (according to this cited article), but I don't know why it was less notable for him. Maybe nothing important happened while he was Speaker. Either way, the rule is named after Hastert for his role from 1999-2007. So, Speaker of the Houses blocking Bills from the House floor is new. Edit: Sorry, linked the wrong article.
thank god...
Did you have the right one?
EDIT: Is there a right one?
|
That sounds deeply undemocratic. I mean one man can deny bunch of representatives, does not sound ok. How about bills brought by public? Does US even has those?
|
On February 15 2018 18:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 17:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:Quoting this part because it's really the only relevant one: On February 15 2018 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
That's how it was before the Hastert Rule and after This is clearly where the disconnect is. As I said earlier, apparently all Speakers pre-Gingrich had the power to deny Bill votes, but never did so, probably because they actually respected the role. Apparently Gingrich did it first (according to this cited article), but I don't know why it was less notable for him. Maybe nothing important happened while he was Speaker. Either way, the rule is named after Hastert for his role from 1999-2007. So, Speaker of the Houses blocking Bills from the House floor is new. Edit: Sorry, linked the wrong article. thank god... Did you have the right one?
I changed the link.
Now, granted, looking deeper I don't know if it's a "never done before", or more that apparently Democrats held the House from 1957-1995 with a decent majority and generally played nice, and anything prior about blocking Bills wasn't notable enough to be brought onto the internet.
Politifact is probably a lot more clear cut on when the Bill blocking started, quoting 1995 when Republicans finally regained the House.
|
On February 15 2018 18:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 18:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 17:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:Quoting this part because it's really the only relevant one: On February 15 2018 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
That's how it was before the Hastert Rule and after This is clearly where the disconnect is. As I said earlier, apparently all Speakers pre-Gingrich had the power to deny Bill votes, but never did so, probably because they actually respected the role. Apparently Gingrich did it first (according to this cited article), but I don't know why it was less notable for him. Maybe nothing important happened while he was Speaker. Either way, the rule is named after Hastert for his role from 1999-2007. So, Speaker of the Houses blocking Bills from the House floor is new. Edit: Sorry, linked the wrong article. thank god... Did you have the right one? I changed the link. Now, granted, looking deeper I don't know if it's a "never done before", or more that apparently Democrats held the House from 1957-1995 with a decent majority and generally played nice, and anything prior about blocking Bills wasn't notable enough to be brought onto the internet.
Wait, what link did you have before? That's the only one I saw and was wondering where in there you saw anything about Newt Gingrich, let alone that he was the first and only.
Is there a quote you could pull out you are referencing in there?
If you're going to use that to justify your now admittedly uninformed and unconfirmed assertion of when this started with that politifact piece, I'm going to need you to recognize you are wrong about what the Hastert Rule is/was
One of the guiding principles for Republicans in the House of Representatives is that no bill comes up for a vote unless a majority of Republican members support it. It’s called the "Hastert Rule,"
It's not a rule and there isn't a clear consequence for breaking it. It's just a general political principal that likely predates our awareness of it, as it's kinda just simple strategy given the reality of our political system.
I sincerely hope we don't have to continue this.
|
On February 15 2018 18:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 18:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 17:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:Quoting this part because it's really the only relevant one: On February 15 2018 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
That's how it was before the Hastert Rule and after This is clearly where the disconnect is. As I said earlier, apparently all Speakers pre-Gingrich had the power to deny Bill votes, but never did so, probably because they actually respected the role. Apparently Gingrich did it first (according to this cited article), but I don't know why it was less notable for him. Maybe nothing important happened while he was Speaker. Either way, the rule is named after Hastert for his role from 1999-2007. So, Speaker of the Houses blocking Bills from the House floor is new. Edit: Sorry, linked the wrong article. thank god... Did you have the right one? I changed the link. Now, granted, looking deeper I don't know if it's a "never done before", or more that apparently Democrats held the House from 1957-1995 with a decent majority and generally played nice, and anything prior about blocking Bills wasn't notable enough to be brought onto the internet. Wait, what link did you have before? That's the only one I saw and was wondering where in there you saw anything about Newt Gingrich, let alone that he was the first and only. Is there a quote you could pull out you are referencing in there?
In review it was a combination of those articles talking about Gingrich starting the policy and the linked one stating the timeline of exclusionary policies.
The Politifact article is a lot more clearcut.
Edit:
Its origins likely stem from the GOP takeover of the House in 1995, said Linda Fowler, professor of government at Dartmouth College.
|
|
|
On February 15 2018 18:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 18:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 18:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 17:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:Quoting this part because it's really the only relevant one: On February 15 2018 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
That's how it was before the Hastert Rule and after This is clearly where the disconnect is. As I said earlier, apparently all Speakers pre-Gingrich had the power to deny Bill votes, but never did so, probably because they actually respected the role. Apparently Gingrich did it first (according to this cited article), but I don't know why it was less notable for him. Maybe nothing important happened while he was Speaker. Either way, the rule is named after Hastert for his role from 1999-2007. So, Speaker of the Houses blocking Bills from the House floor is new. Edit: Sorry, linked the wrong article. thank god... Did you have the right one? I changed the link. Now, granted, looking deeper I don't know if it's a "never done before", or more that apparently Democrats held the House from 1957-1995 with a decent majority and generally played nice, and anything prior about blocking Bills wasn't notable enough to be brought onto the internet. Wait, what link did you have before? That's the only one I saw and was wondering where in there you saw anything about Newt Gingrich, let alone that he was the first and only. Is there a quote you could pull out you are referencing in there? In review it was a combination of those articles talking about Gingrich starting the policy and the linked one stating the timeline of exclusionary policies. The Politifact article is a lot more clearcut.
I see, another case of the mixups.
What in either/both of those lead you to the assertions you made previously? Like some quotes, because you keep pointing to things and when I read them they don't say what you said but I have to read the whole thing several times to make sure.
Edit:
Its origins likely stem from the GOP takeover of the House in 1995, said Linda Fowler, professor of government at Dartmouth College.
there's more
Its origins likely stem from the GOP takeover of the House in 1995, said Linda Fowler, professor of government at Dartmouth College. Before then, Republicans had not controlled the House since President Dwight Eisenhower was in office.
"Old-style Republicans had been in the minority so long, they worked with the majority on the theory that part of a loaf was better than nothing," Fowler said. "Gingrich and others like him were scornful of such accommodation."
Which suggests that the majority of the majority controlled what came to the floor because they controlled a significant majority and controlled essentially everything that came to the floor and Republicans worked with them for crumbs. (according to politifacts characterization)
|
On February 15 2018 18:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 18:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 18:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 17:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:Quoting this part because it's really the only relevant one: On February 15 2018 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
That's how it was before the Hastert Rule and after This is clearly where the disconnect is. As I said earlier, apparently all Speakers pre-Gingrich had the power to deny Bill votes, but never did so, probably because they actually respected the role. Apparently Gingrich did it first (according to this cited article), but I don't know why it was less notable for him. Maybe nothing important happened while he was Speaker. Either way, the rule is named after Hastert for his role from 1999-2007. So, Speaker of the Houses blocking Bills from the House floor is new. Edit: Sorry, linked the wrong article. thank god... Did you have the right one? I changed the link. Now, granted, looking deeper I don't know if it's a "never done before", or more that apparently Democrats held the House from 1957-1995 with a decent majority and generally played nice, and anything prior about blocking Bills wasn't notable enough to be brought onto the internet. Wait, what link did you have before? That's the only one I saw and was wondering where in there you saw anything about Newt Gingrich, let alone that he was the first and only. Is there a quote you could pull out you are referencing in there? In review it was a combination of those articles talking about Gingrich starting the policy and the linked one stating the timeline of exclusionary policies. The Politifact article is a lot more clearcut. I see, another case of the mixups. What in either/both of those lead you to the assertions you made previously? Like some quotes, because you keep pointing to things and when I read them they don't say what you said but I have to read the whole thing several times to make sure.
Politifact suggests the origin is 1995, well within our awareness:
Its origins likely stem from the GOP takeover of the House in 1995, said Linda Fowler, professor of government at Dartmouth College. Before then, Republicans had not controlled the House since President Dwight Eisenhower was in office.
"Old-style Republicans had been in the minority so long, they worked with the majority on the theory that part of a loaf was better than nothing," Fowler said. "Gingrich and others like him were scornful of such accommodation."
So basically working with the minority was a thing in the 40 years before (and possibly before), and then the Speaker position took on a different stance in 1995, and more notably with Hastert.
Edit: I mean, the why doesn't seem very important? Point is when the Speaker position started to be abused.
|
On February 15 2018 19:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 18:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 18:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 18:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 17:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:Quoting this part because it's really the only relevant one: On February 15 2018 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
That's how it was before the Hastert Rule and after This is clearly where the disconnect is. As I said earlier, apparently all Speakers pre-Gingrich had the power to deny Bill votes, but never did so, probably because they actually respected the role. Apparently Gingrich did it first (according to this cited article), but I don't know why it was less notable for him. Maybe nothing important happened while he was Speaker. Either way, the rule is named after Hastert for his role from 1999-2007. So, Speaker of the Houses blocking Bills from the House floor is new. Edit: Sorry, linked the wrong article. thank god... Did you have the right one? I changed the link. Now, granted, looking deeper I don't know if it's a "never done before", or more that apparently Democrats held the House from 1957-1995 with a decent majority and generally played nice, and anything prior about blocking Bills wasn't notable enough to be brought onto the internet. Wait, what link did you have before? That's the only one I saw and was wondering where in there you saw anything about Newt Gingrich, let alone that he was the first and only. Is there a quote you could pull out you are referencing in there? In review it was a combination of those articles talking about Gingrich starting the policy and the linked one stating the timeline of exclusionary policies. The Politifact article is a lot more clearcut. I see, another case of the mixups. What in either/both of those lead you to the assertions you made previously? Like some quotes, because you keep pointing to things and when I read them they don't say what you said but I have to read the whole thing several times to make sure. Politifact suggests the origin is 1995, well within our awareness: Show nested quote +Its origins likely stem from the GOP takeover of the House in 1995, said Linda Fowler, professor of government at Dartmouth College. Before then, Republicans had not controlled the House since President Dwight Eisenhower was in office.
"Old-style Republicans had been in the minority so long, they worked with the majority on the theory that part of a loaf was better than nothing," Fowler said. "Gingrich and others like him were scornful of such accommodation." So basically working with the minority was a thing in the 40 years before (and possibly before), and then the Speaker position took on a different stance in 1995, and more notably with Hastert.
Besides the fact that we've twisted the original statements beyond recognition, are operating under a unique interpretation of the meaning of "the Hastert Rule" and playing fast and loose with the history of the house, just to get somewhere close to this making sense we're still left with your speciously sourced claims about this not happening before and the fact that we don't even know if this is wtf he was talking about.
I can't entertain any more on this until we can get agreement on what the hell the Hastert 'rule' was/is and if that was even what he was talking about.
|
On February 15 2018 19:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 19:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 18:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 18:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 17:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:Quoting this part because it's really the only relevant one: On February 15 2018 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
That's how it was before the Hastert Rule and after This is clearly where the disconnect is. As I said earlier, apparently all Speakers pre-Gingrich had the power to deny Bill votes, but never did so, probably because they actually respected the role. Apparently Gingrich did it first (according to this cited article), but I don't know why it was less notable for him. Maybe nothing important happened while he was Speaker. Either way, the rule is named after Hastert for his role from 1999-2007. So, Speaker of the Houses blocking Bills from the House floor is new. Edit: Sorry, linked the wrong article. thank god... Did you have the right one? I changed the link. Now, granted, looking deeper I don't know if it's a "never done before", or more that apparently Democrats held the House from 1957-1995 with a decent majority and generally played nice, and anything prior about blocking Bills wasn't notable enough to be brought onto the internet. Wait, what link did you have before? That's the only one I saw and was wondering where in there you saw anything about Newt Gingrich, let alone that he was the first and only. Is there a quote you could pull out you are referencing in there? In review it was a combination of those articles talking about Gingrich starting the policy and the linked one stating the timeline of exclusionary policies. The Politifact article is a lot more clearcut. I see, another case of the mixups. What in either/both of those lead you to the assertions you made previously? Like some quotes, because you keep pointing to things and when I read them they don't say what you said but I have to read the whole thing several times to make sure. Politifact suggests the origin is 1995, well within our awareness: Its origins likely stem from the GOP takeover of the House in 1995, said Linda Fowler, professor of government at Dartmouth College. Before then, Republicans had not controlled the House since President Dwight Eisenhower was in office.
"Old-style Republicans had been in the minority so long, they worked with the majority on the theory that part of a loaf was better than nothing," Fowler said. "Gingrich and others like him were scornful of such accommodation." So basically working with the minority was a thing in the 40 years before (and possibly before), and then the Speaker position took on a different stance in 1995, and more notably with Hastert. Besides the fact that we've twisted the original statements beyond recognition, are operating under a unique interpretation of the meaning of "the Hastert Rule" and playing fast and loose with the history of the house, just to get somewhere close to this making sense we're still left with your speciously sourced claims about this not happening before and the fact that we don't even know if this is wtf he was talking about. I can't entertain any more on this until we can get agreement on what the hell the Hastert 'rule' was/is and if that was even what he was talking about.
Well, to put it as cleanly as possibly: You asked what changed in 2001 that put the voting of Bills in the Speaker's hands.
From 1995-2007 the two Speakers started blocking Bills mostly backed by the opposition, with exceptions of their choosing. And the system allowed it.
That basically seems to be the gist of it.
|
On February 15 2018 19:19 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 19:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 19:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 18:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 18:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 17:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:Quoting this part because it's really the only relevant one: On February 15 2018 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
That's how it was before the Hastert Rule and after This is clearly where the disconnect is. As I said earlier, apparently all Speakers pre-Gingrich had the power to deny Bill votes, but never did so, probably because they actually respected the role. Apparently Gingrich did it first (according to this cited article), but I don't know why it was less notable for him. Maybe nothing important happened while he was Speaker. Either way, the rule is named after Hastert for his role from 1999-2007. So, Speaker of the Houses blocking Bills from the House floor is new. Edit: Sorry, linked the wrong article. thank god... Did you have the right one? I changed the link. Now, granted, looking deeper I don't know if it's a "never done before", or more that apparently Democrats held the House from 1957-1995 with a decent majority and generally played nice, and anything prior about blocking Bills wasn't notable enough to be brought onto the internet. Wait, what link did you have before? That's the only one I saw and was wondering where in there you saw anything about Newt Gingrich, let alone that he was the first and only. Is there a quote you could pull out you are referencing in there? In review it was a combination of those articles talking about Gingrich starting the policy and the linked one stating the timeline of exclusionary policies. The Politifact article is a lot more clearcut. I see, another case of the mixups. What in either/both of those lead you to the assertions you made previously? Like some quotes, because you keep pointing to things and when I read them they don't say what you said but I have to read the whole thing several times to make sure. Politifact suggests the origin is 1995, well within our awareness: Its origins likely stem from the GOP takeover of the House in 1995, said Linda Fowler, professor of government at Dartmouth College. Before then, Republicans had not controlled the House since President Dwight Eisenhower was in office.
"Old-style Republicans had been in the minority so long, they worked with the majority on the theory that part of a loaf was better than nothing," Fowler said. "Gingrich and others like him were scornful of such accommodation." So basically working with the minority was a thing in the 40 years before (and possibly before), and then the Speaker position took on a different stance in 1995, and more notably with Hastert. Besides the fact that we've twisted the original statements beyond recognition, are operating under a unique interpretation of the meaning of "the Hastert Rule" and playing fast and loose with the history of the house, just to get somewhere close to this making sense we're still left with your speciously sourced claims about this not happening before and the fact that we don't even know if this is wtf he was talking about. I can't entertain any more on this until we can get agreement on what the hell the Hastert 'rule' was/is and if that was even what he was talking about. Well, to put it as cleanly as possibly: You asked what changed in 2001 that put the voting of Bills in the Speaker's hands. From 1995-2007 the two Speakers started blocking Bills mostly backed by the opposition, with exceptions of their choosing. And the system allowed it. That basically seems to be the gist of it.
"What changed in 2001"
"From 1995-2007"
... Anyway....
That's not what I asked. He said:
On February 15 2018 14:22 Plansix wrote:
The key thing you understand is since 2001, the speaker of the house must approve any bill that comes to the floor for a vote. Even if every member of the house supported it, the speaker must approve. Prior to this rule, a majority vote could bring a bill to the floor for debate.
then I asked:
"what rule is that?"
Then you jumped in and proceeded to, what I can only guess, is gaslight me at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
