Legislative Rules

[TahoeHorn 107]

I think legislative rules should be changed to reflect modern realities.  These realities include:

1. The mechanism for convincing other legislators to support or oppose a motion does not take place in open floor debate.  Open floor debate is utterly worthless.  It is done for TV.  Speeches are submitted and entered into the record as if given.  Other legislators do not attend actual speeches.  They do not attend hearings except when they are speaking, chairing or representing the minority interest.  That's three people on a committee of, say, 21.

2. A Senator doesn't learn what's in a bill by a "reading".  Bills aren't actually read.  The official process doesn't identify revisions with revision date.

3. Rules can be changed with a majority vote but some key votes require 60.  A rule is only a rule until it isn't.  This is a formula for trouble.

State, as well as the US, legislative bodies should have new rules.

Edited May 15, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[David Dennison 18646]

Vote for members who favor reform. That's tough for conservatives.

[Captainant 27405]

Lol yeah the conservative hack wants to put limits on legislative fuckery after the GOP caused hell for the previous Democrat administration (blocking judges and other appointments) and before they get swept out of office in the midterms. Fucking hypocrite, go get your doughnut box

[Brisketexan 104537]

My vote:

Fuck no.

Your team has decided to up the ante of legislative assfuckery.  Soon, it will be their turn to live with being on the receiving end.  Tough fucking shit.  If they didn't want to be subjected to future assfuckery, they shouldn't have made it the order of the day.

Capiche?

[TahoeHorn 107]

None of my proposals have anything to do with party.  The first two apply to the New York legislature, Germany and French regions just as much as the US Congress.  The Third doesn't change anything; it enshrines an important rule we have.

[Brisketexan 104537]

8 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

None of my proposals have anything to do with party.  The first two apply to the New York legislature, Germany and French regions just as much as the US Congress.  The Third doesn't change anything; it enshrines an important rule we have.

Your concern for order, process, etc., is duly noted.

As is your total insincerity.

The rules for the US Congress are "if we have a majority, fuck you up the ass."  Your team happily made and/or took advantage of them.  When it's your day in the barrel, tough shit.  Good government is a myth, and it ain't ever coming back to reality.  Enjoy your post-truth, post-rule-of-law world.  Revel in it.

Edited May 17, 2018 by Brisketexan

[bernorange 8348]

42 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

...The rules for the US Congress are "if we have a majority, fuck you up the ass."  ...

That's how we ended up with the tax bill known as the ACA that originated in the Senate. 

Edited May 17, 2018 by bernorange

[Brisketexan 104537]

Just now, bernorange said:

That's how we ended up with the tax bill known as the ACA that originated in the Senate. 

In no small part, yep.  If you think I'm absolving the Dems with respect to the shit-paved path we're on, you think wrong.  But it's hard to look at the GOP without laughing when their champions argue "okay, now that we've even FURTHER fucked the process and skewed the rules....and we think there's a chance we'll lose the House, maybe we should talk about reasonable rules reform to bring things back to order."

Nobody's interested in fixing the rules until (1) after they've fucked them up even further for their advantage, and (2) when they begin to foresee a chance those shitty rules will be used against them.

I'm waiting for a bloc/party to propose meaningful rule and process reform that they'll implement AS SOON as they take power.  I don't think I'll hold my breath waiting for that.

[TahoeHorn 107]

My rules all go to make things right.  They do NOT give more power to the party in power.  The Third gives less.  The first two have nothing to do with power.

Edited May 17, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[Brisketexan 104537]

22 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

My rules all go to make things right.  They do NOT give more power to the party in power.  The Third gives less.  The first two have nothing to do with power.

That's my point, you disingenuous toad.

Only AFTER utilizing the process friendly to the party in power, and only AFTER realizing that your party faces the prospect of losing power, do you wish to change the rules to LIMIT the power that the party in power has.  That's the whole fucking point.

You're not even a decent troll anymore.

[hobbes2702 12791]

1 hour ago, TahoeHorn said:

My rules all go to make things right.  They do NOT give more power to the party in power.  The Third gives less.  The first two have nothing to do with power.

No shit. That’s the fucking point. It’s only a concern for you when your team is going to staring down the barrel 

[JBJ 3648]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

My vote:

Fuck no.

Your team has decided to up the ante of legislative assfuckery.  Soon, it will be their turn to live with being on the receiving end.  Tough fucking shit.  If they didn't want to be subjected to future assfuckery, they shouldn't have made it the order of the day.

Capiche?

Didnt you say this same thing during the Obama administration?

[Brisketexan 104537]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

Didnt you say this same thing during the Obama administration?

I damn well called out Democrat lawmakers for jacking with the rules, because there is one sure-fire guarantee in government: the rules you change to your advantage today will be shoved up your ass tomorrow.

Nevermind the fact that steady rules create consistency, predictability, and institutional strength -- so, good policy reasons.  But the most visceral reason is the reasoning that if you make a rule that "the party with possession of the ball gets to shoot members of the other team in the face," you better not EVER turn over the ball.  And....since you KNOW the ball is going to change possession at some point....don't implement that rule in the first place.

[JBJ 3648]

I just found it odd that you made a partisan jab on a topic that Tahoe would have espoused 5 years ago.  Tahoe is being consistent even if the timing is convenient for him.  But I guess you are being consistent as well.

Edited May 17, 2018 by JBJ

[DanRydell 799]

I agree that rules should require a supermajority to amend or suspend. Otherwise they’re rules in name only.

[Brisketexan 104537]

3 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I just found it odd that you made a partisan jab on a topic that Tahoe would have espoused 5 years ago.  Tahoe is being consistent even if the timing is convenient for him.  But I guess you are being consistent as well.

Tahoe's not being consistent, that's the problem (it's the repeated problem).

He expects good and decent behavior from leadership when it's not GOP.

He excuses and/or espouses all manner of shenanigans when leadership is GOP, because Gorsuch and stuff.

A person who PRETENDS to have principles, but conveniently only when the principles would benefit his "team," has no principles at all.  Tahoe has no principles, other than "good for the GOP = good."

[TahoeHorn 107]

2 hours ago, JBJ said:

I just found it odd that you made a partisan jab on a topic that Tahoe would have espoused 5 years ago.  Tahoe is being consistent even if the timing is convenient for him.  But I guess you are being consistent as well.

And I would make it five years from now even if the Dems were in power.  It is more favorable to Dems to adopt these good government proposals now.

[Brisketexan 104537]

34 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

And I would make it five years from now even if the Dems were in power.  It is more favorable to Dems to adopt these good government proposals now.

Nobody believes you.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Someone on here has reached peak trolling. Taking up for the lack of swam I guess. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Or maybe swam was just the caretaker. Maybe TahoeHorn has ALWAYS been the caretaker. 

If I may be so bold sir. 

[bernorange 8348]

43 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

... It is more favorable to Dems to adopt these good government proposals now.

What proposals? You listed issues. You didn't propose any solutions.

[TahoeHorn 107]

20 minutes ago, bernorange said:

What proposals? You listed issues. You didn't propose any solutions.

I said "change to fix these issues".   In the first and second, for example, I'd write rules which had the only thing  required to happen on the floor was voting.  I'd require bills to be in final form  online a certain time before voting.  I'd require revisions to be marked so that I could see when particular wording was added or deleted.  I could easily see the difference between revision 4 and revision 5.  In short I'd have the rules reflect the modern way of negotiating a big agreement, not the 1789 way, and not the PTA meeting way.  The mechanics would be how IBM does a deal with AT&T.

 

In 1789 they couldn't hand every legislator a copy of the bill, so they had readings.  We can't read a 1,000 page health care bill.  Even handing us a new version of a 1,000 page bill is no good if you don't say what's changed since the one you gave me yesterday.  It's idiocy to think I'm supposed to reread the bill and figure that out.  And voters don't need to see bullshit debate.  They need to see the fucking bill, and see it in time to scream about it.  Or somebullshit feature smeaked in at the last minute.

Edited May 17, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[bernorange 8348]

You know all too well that the devil is in the details. 

[Brisketexan 104537]

14 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

In 1789 they couldn't hand every legislator a copy of the bill, so they had readings.  We can't read a 1,000 page health care bill.  Even handing us a new version of a 1,000 page bill is no good if you don't say what's changed since the one you gave me yesterday.  It's idiocy to think I'm supposed to reread the bill and figure that out.  And voters don't need to see bullshit debate.  They need to see the fucking bill, and see it in time to scream about it.  Or somebullshit feature smeaked in at the last minute.

Ok, see.....when you propose something like this, as if you were some sage who just wanted things to be right, just, and fair....

....but you also champion the "Trump Tax Cuts"......it demonstrates that not only are you full of shit, you are so full of it that it oozes out of places shit should never escape.  The tax bill was the very essence of everything you claim to criticize in your suggestion.

Fuck this shit, you're not even a good troll.

[JBJ 3648]

22 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

I said "change to fix these issues".   In the first and second, for example, I'd write rules which had the only thing  required to happen on the floor was voting.  I'd require bills to be in final form  online a certain time before voting.  I'd require revisions to be marked so that I could see when particular wording was added or deleted.  I could easily see the difference between revision 4 and revision 5.  In short I'd have the rules reflect the modern way of negotiating a big agreement, not the 1789 way, and not the PTA meeting way.  The mechanics would be how IBM does a deal with AT&T.

 

In 1789 they couldn't hand every legislator a copy of the bill, so they had readings.  We can't read a 1,000 page health care bill.  Even handing us a new version of a 1,000 page bill is no good if you don't say what's changed since the one you gave me yesterday.  It's idiocy to think I'm supposed to reread the bill and figure that out.  And voters don't need to see bullshit debate.  They need to see the fucking bill, and see it in time to scream about it.  Or somebullshit feature smeaked in at the last minute.

This is a good policy. 

Surreptitious changes are hardly enforced in contracts.  It's crazy that we allow them in laws.

Edited May 18, 2018 by JBJ