So are we going to talk about what happened in Texas last night? Democrat senator Wendy Davis mounted a filibuster campaign to kill a controversial abortion bill
To be successful in her filibuster. Davis had intended to speak for 13 straight hours, without taking a bathroom break, sitting or even leaning against her desk, until midnight when the bill would expire. She refused to yield for questions.
As the speech progressed, interest intensified around the US. Barack Obama tweeted his support, and a live stream of the proceedings on YouTube attracted more than 150,000 viewers.
The aim of the filibuster was to prevent the bill, by Republican senator Glen Hegar, reaching Perry. The bill would have banned abortions in the state after the 20-week gestation mark, limit abortion-inducing drugs and require terminations to be performed in ambulatory surgical centres.
Advocates say these and other restrictions in the bill would have also triggered the closure of 37 of the state's 42 abortion clinics.
Davis, a rising Democratic star, opened her speech by saying she wanted to humbly give voice to thousands of Texans, and called Republican efforts to pass the bill a "raw abuse of power".
Total chaos at the end, but I also loved the proxi-fight and filibuster through parliamentary procedure.
Have to say that the no-leaning rule was a bit absurd. Also iirc, discussing Roe v Wade was considered out of order while discussing abortion? Very very odd.
My guess is that this is a short term victory. It will probably get snuck in.
I watched part of it yesterday. Absolutely heroic, going through both the physical pain and the incredible mental stress. Real sad that people are forced to do these extraordinary things in order to stand up for equality, but it is even more sad that this isn't even close to the worst people have to go through. Congrats to the women of Texas.
Real sad that people are forced to do these extraordinary things in order to stand up for equality, but it is even more sad that this isn't even close to the worst people have to go through.
How are abortion issues an issue of "equality"? Who's rights are they "equal" to?
I'm disappointed in the Lieutenant Governor, particularly regarding the crowd. Citizens making no threats, doing no damage, no matter how loud, are not a "mob," and the idea that protestors wanted to be involved can be so casually dismissed as such is dispiriting.
When a Republican is filibustering, it is obstructionism. But when a Democrat does it, its an "impressive" feat to be praised.
I'm not sure I've ever said a word about Republican filibustering. I can't even say I understood what filibustering was until I watched a senator stand and talk on a subject for almost 11 hours to defeat a bill she felt very passionate about defeating. Going to such a length for what you believe in is incredibly impressive, regardless of the outcome (which I said in the OP).
Am I also happy about the outcome? Yes. Do I question whether filibustering is a sensible political procedure to have in place? Haha, yes. But I made this thread to discuss Davis' actions for their own merits, because that's what is impressive here. That resolve, conviction and determination.
I'm disappointed in the Lieutenant Governor, particularly regarding the crowd. Citizens making no threats, doing no damage, no matter how loud, are not a "mob," and the idea that protestors wanted to be involved can be so casually dismissed as such is dispiriting.
I'm not. I am 100% for the filibuster, but shouting down the opposition is not how our democracy is supposed to work. We don't want people to just go inside of every legislature and yell.
On the otherside, it was absurd what the the side trying to pass the bill attempted to do. They attempted to change the dates on when the vote was passed, and violated multiple rules of order just to plow through the legislation.
Chaos and disregarding rules of procedure are not what we want.
I'm not. I am 100% for the filibuster, but shouting down the opposition is not how our democracy is supposed to work. We don't want people to just go inside of every legislature and yell.
I was under the impression the majority of those yells and jeers were not about the content of the bill, but about the Republican's questionable way of getting her to stop speaking.
I was under the impression the majority of those yells and jeers were not about the content of the bill, but about the Republican's questionable way of getting her to stop speaking.
A woman's right to sovereignty over own body. I'm not interested in debating abortion in WCT.
Then you better the hell not come in here spouting off like you want to have one.
That said, I have an absolutely opposite view of filibusters from those expressed above. Filibusters represent an important procedure for ensuring that bills only pass with broad-based support; by preventing bare majorities from making controversial changes that may literally flip after the next election, filibusters promote stability and consistency in policy-making. The mere threat of a filibuster generally suffices to serve this purpose, and people who actually give filibuster speeches—Rand Paul or Wendy Davis—engage in a gimmick.
On the otherside, it was absurd what the the side trying to pass the bill attempted to do. They attempted to change the dates on when the vote was passed, and violated multiple rules of order just to plow through the legislation.
The good thing about that date change attempt was that it was so bloody incompetent. If the livestream hadn't been taking place, they might have gotten away with it.
Interestingly Texas seems to have no cloture, so she may be able to do it again—although it would take a concerted effort involving her yielding the floor to another Dem, taking a break, coming back, rinse, repeat assuming the filibuster rules don't apply once she yields.
This is what all politicians should have to do when they want to filibuster. Hell, I may disagree vehemently with Strom Thurmond trying to stop civil rights, but at least he was willing to stand up for his beliefs instead of just hiding behind a procedural gimmick.
I don't respect the filibuster process. At all. Rand Paul, Wendy Davis, Strom Thurmond - filibustering is a procedural gimmick no matter how you slice it. I'd rather - I don't know - my elected officials do their fricking jobs and actually govern instead of simply wasting time so a bill can't go to being voted on. If you don't like a bill go get the proper support in the house for voting it down. It's called governing. That's why you're there. Not to find loopholes in everything so you don't have to decide anything.
You want to know why Congress is at a 12% approval, Obama is hovering around 50%, and nothing EVER changes in government rather than simply shuffling the same crap around? This is a perfect example.
The problem with current filibustering, at least in the US Senate, is that there is no downside to doing it. Republicans have been able to filibuster a record amount of times in the past 5 years because they don't have to do what Warren here had to do. If the talking filibuster was required, it would be used a lot less and Congress would function a lot better with preserving the purpose of the filibuster.
Just now, MSN.com had picture links with captions to three articles. One was about this abortion story, another was criticizing the same State (Texas) for putting to death a record 500 prisoners. While I'm not saying the two issues are precisely the same, it was, nevertheless, an interesting study in the way the media values (or does not value) human life. 500 dead prisoners is a tragedy, 1 million dead fetuses per year is a statistic.
opened her speech by saying she wanted to humbly give voice to thousands of Texans, and called Republican efforts to pass the bill a "raw abuse of power".
I thought by humbly giving a voice to thousands of Texans she wanted to give a voice to all the unborn babies against the "raw abuse of power" of women wanting to kill said babies that are powerless against them. But then I realized I was sadly mistaken.
Well, that's certainly a phenomenal effort. Regardless of your opinion on the matter, you have to admire the conviction of a person who's willing to do that for what they believe in.
Just now, MSN.com had picture links with captions to three articles. One was about this abortion story, another was criticizing the same State (Texas) for putting to death a record 500 prisoners. While I'm not saying the two issues are precisely the same, it was, nevertheless, an interesting study in the way the media values (or does not value) human life. 500 dead prisoners is a tragedy, 1 million dead fetuses per year is a statistic.
I don't know weather to draw similarities to tragic loss of warts and tumors each year; make a quip about the dairy industry; or to just point out that your position is not supported, as a fetus isn't considered a living human until well after the latest point at which a doctor would consider performing an abortion.
The problem with current filibustering, at least in the US Senate, is that there is no downside to doing it. Republicans have been able to filibuster a record amount of times in the past 5 years because they don't have to do what Warren here had to do. If the talking filibuster was required, it would be used a lot less and Congress would function a lot better with preserving the purpose of the filibuster.
This effect doesn't arise because there are two kinds of filibusters. We have one filibuster, but the mere threat of a filibuster where the Democrats lack the votes for cloture means the majority leader isn't going to make himself look stupid by starting debate. The real issue is that the Democrats try to pass things the Republicans vehemently don't like, and they can't even get a handful of Rs to cross the aisle for cloture. If they Rs were really destroying the Senate's governance that way, they should have been voted out of office. But they weren't and in fact Americans voted them in after the Democratic Party tried to pass a large, controversial bill (beginning in Mass's 2010 special election, the ACA). So really the issue here isn't obstruction, it's checks and balances. If you don't like that one party is using a check, vote them out, not the check. And really, most of any obstructionism in Congress has come from the Tea Party Rs in the House where the Democrats do not enjoy a filibuster, not from the often balanced, compromising Senators.
500 dead prisoners is a tragedy, 1 million dead fetuses per year is a statistic.
Nice Stalin reference.
To be fair, fetuses are parasitic cell-blobs, directly reliant on another human's body. I'd call that only potentially human.
Also, isn't America all about personal autonomy and liberty, all that jazz?
If a government wants less abortions, they should focus on sex education, contraceptives, stuff like that. Maybe put together a social support system so single mothers can afford to raise children?
source
Regardless of the outcome, I think that was an incredible show of determination.
Thoughts?
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Total chaos at the end, but I also loved the proxi-fight and filibuster through parliamentary procedure.
Have to say that the no-leaning rule was a bit absurd. Also iirc, discussing Roe v Wade was considered out of order while discussing abortion? Very very odd.
My guess is that this is a short term victory. It will probably get snuck in.
How are abortion issues an issue of "equality"? Who's rights are they "equal" to?
Rand Paul was given tons of applause for his physical filibuster.
What people hate is the Senate's ability to filibuster procedurally in order to lock the legislature down.
Physically standing up there and talking non-stop for what you believe is impressive.
I'm not sure I've ever said a word about Republican filibustering. I can't even say I understood what filibustering was until I watched a senator stand and talk on a subject for almost 11 hours to defeat a bill she felt very passionate about defeating. Going to such a length for what you believe in is incredibly impressive, regardless of the outcome (which I said in the OP).
Am I also happy about the outcome? Yes. Do I question whether filibustering is a sensible political procedure to have in place? Haha, yes. But I made this thread to discuss Davis' actions for their own merits, because that's what is impressive here. That resolve, conviction and determination.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
A woman's right to sovereignty over own body. I'm not interested in debating abortion in WCT.
I'm not. I am 100% for the filibuster, but shouting down the opposition is not how our democracy is supposed to work. We don't want people to just go inside of every legislature and yell.
On the otherside, it was absurd what the the side trying to pass the bill attempted to do. They attempted to change the dates on when the vote was passed, and violated multiple rules of order just to plow through the legislation.
Chaos and disregarding rules of procedure are not what we want.
I was under the impression the majority of those yells and jeers were not about the content of the bill, but about the Republican's questionable way of getting her to stop speaking.
Yea, and they came from her amazing quote, "At what point must a female senator raise her hand or her voice to be recognized over her male colleagues?” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/leticia-van-de-putte_n_3500497.html)
Cheers? Fine. Yelling to drown out the speaker? Not ok in my book.
Then you better the hell not come in here spouting off like you want to have one.
That said, I have an absolutely opposite view of filibusters from those expressed above. Filibusters represent an important procedure for ensuring that bills only pass with broad-based support; by preventing bare majorities from making controversial changes that may literally flip after the next election, filibusters promote stability and consistency in policy-making. The mere threat of a filibuster generally suffices to serve this purpose, and people who actually give filibuster speeches—Rand Paul or Wendy Davis—engage in a gimmick.
Art is life itself.
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
You want to know why Congress is at a 12% approval, Obama is hovering around 50%, and nothing EVER changes in government rather than simply shuffling the same crap around? This is a perfect example.
I thought by humbly giving a voice to thousands of Texans she wanted to give a voice to all the unborn babies against the "raw abuse of power" of women wanting to kill said babies that are powerless against them. But then I realized I was sadly mistaken.
GWBKarador, Necrotic Ooze SubthemeBWG
I don't know weather to draw similarities to tragic loss of warts and tumors each year; make a quip about the dairy industry; or to just point out that your position is not supported, as a fetus isn't considered a living human until well after the latest point at which a doctor would consider performing an abortion.
So take your pick I guess.
This effect doesn't arise because there are two kinds of filibusters. We have one filibuster, but the mere threat of a filibuster where the Democrats lack the votes for cloture means the majority leader isn't going to make himself look stupid by starting debate. The real issue is that the Democrats try to pass things the Republicans vehemently don't like, and they can't even get a handful of Rs to cross the aisle for cloture. If they Rs were really destroying the Senate's governance that way, they should have been voted out of office. But they weren't and in fact Americans voted them in after the Democratic Party tried to pass a large, controversial bill (beginning in Mass's 2010 special election, the ACA). So really the issue here isn't obstruction, it's checks and balances. If you don't like that one party is using a check, vote them out, not the check. And really, most of any obstructionism in Congress has come from the Tea Party Rs in the House where the Democrats do not enjoy a filibuster, not from the often balanced, compromising Senators.
To be fair, fetuses are parasitic cell-blobs, directly reliant on another human's body. I'd call that only potentially human.
Also, isn't America all about personal autonomy and liberty, all that jazz?
If a government wants less abortions, they should focus on sex education, contraceptives, stuff like that. Maybe put together a social support system so single mothers can afford to raise children?
Art is life itself.
I'm hard pressed to consider a fetus a "person."
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH