Wendy Davis (D-Ft. Worth) is awesome.

Azale

Azale

Deity
Joined
Jun 29, 2002
Messages
18,723
Location
Texas
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews....ilibuster-to-stop-omnibus-abortion-bill.html/

This is a livestream and countdown of her filibuster efforts on a bill that attempts to effectively destroy abortion in the state. If she goes about 5 more hours, the bill will fail.

Talk in here about the Texas abortion bill, the filibuster, and whatever strikes your fancy.

http://www.texasobserver.org/live-blog-senate-filibuster-on-anti-abortion-bill/

"To kill the measure, she must keep speaking until midnight—13 hours total—without eating, drinking, sitting down or even leaning against anything."
 
In before the usual pathetic "She's supporting the killing of babies!" rhetoric and defense of reducing female bodily autonomy.
 
[18:20:20] <VRWCAgent> Now that's now a filibuster ought to be.
[18:20:42] <VRWCAgent> Much as I hope the bill passes, kudos to her if she can pull it off. That's old school right there.
 
Can someone explain to me why this filibuster-tactic is even allowed(without invoking the Constitution)? What has this to do with democracy? The fact that you can stop a bill by talking a lot seems to me a bit braindead to me.
 
Don't worry, it's nothing constitutional (though I worry at your reluctance to have the highest rule of law invoked...). It's simply parliamentary procedures adopted by the Senate.
 
Lillefix said:
Can someone explain to me why this filibuster-tactic is even allowed(without invoking the Constitution)? What has this to do with democracy? The fact that you can stop a bill by talking a lot seems to me a bit braindead to me.
Click to expand...


2 parts: Part 1 is tradition. It's been used in the legislatures at least as long as the modern Western legislature has existed. And so it's a part of the normal procedure of how the things are run. Part 2 is that the constitutions allow the legislative bodies to decide many of the issues concerning the procedures that the legislature follows, and they have enshrined the right to filibuster.
 
Well as I understand it, in the US Senate the filibuster was inadvertently enshrined through poorly worded procedural documentation so yeah....
 
This how filibusters should be done, not with the silly 'announce intent to filibuster' stuff Congress does now.
 
Either Filibusters on live stream are supposed to look like they are being shut down on poopy technicality all the time or i have just tuned in at the most depressing time. :(

Edit: Ah, apparently they let her continue after all.
Yay! :)
 
The filibuster is a good thing. It's yet another obstacle to simple mob rule.

Who cares if it was an unintended consequence? It's a good one, and it lets an outnumbered political group make a stand ( if they value the issue enough. )

Or are we doing the "50.01% of the population should be able to rule 49.99% of the population with an iron fist" song and dance again?
 
I am completely in favor of the use of filibusters. It's a good check on power -- btw #StandWithWendy (hahaha)
 
Yeah, I don't think you're going to find too many people who haven't just given up on the idea of checks and balances ( be they old-fashioned authoritarians or mob-rule radicals ) who are actually against this. Especially the good ol' "read the phonebook" kind.
 
Filibusters just have a bad rep because of how they have been used at the federal level to such an extreme level but minus actual filibustering.
 
AlpsStranger said:
The filibuster is a good thing. It's yet another obstacle to simple mob rule.

Who cares if it was an unintended consequence? It's a good one, and it lets an outnumbered political group make a stand ( if they value the issue enough. )

Or are we doing the "50.01% of the population should be able to rule 49.99% of the population with an iron fist" song and dance again?
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about them, aside from what their intent is, but doesn't it basically mean that 1 person can stop the will of everybody else? Theoretically speaking..
 
warpus said:
I don't know anything about them, aside from what their intent is, but doesn't it basically mean that 1 person can stop the will of everybody else? Theoretically speaking..
Click to expand...
No . . . since the will of the majority authorized the procedure . . . theoretically speaking.
 
warpus said:
I don't know anything about them, aside from what their intent is, but doesn't it basically mean that 1 person can stop the will of everybody else? Theoretically speaking..
Click to expand...
No, the filibusters can be cut off but it takes a much larger amount of votes than a simple majority. So an ok sized minority can pull of a filibuster, but one deranged nut cannot. In the US senate for example if you have 60 votes you can shut down a filibuster.
 
kramerfan86 said:
No, the filibusters can be cut off but it takes a much larger amount of votes than a simple majority. So an ok sized minority can pull of a filibuster, but one deranged nut cannot. In the US senate for example if you have 60 votes you can shut down a filibuster.
Click to expand...

This, before they changed it the threshold used to be alot higher (67 or 63 senators IIRC -- can't remember which though)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom