What is the value in blocking legislation? (1 Viewer)

[JAA]

I'm not going to beat around the bush, but I'm also not going to attack any individual.  However, I would like to understand the value in this political move.  How does it serve the people?

What is the value in blocking legislation either through not putting it up for a vote or making it a poison pill?

Lets focus on "not putting up for a vote".  The purpose of this is to circumvent the democratic process through not even allowing elected officials to vote on possible legislation.  How could this be any less American?

1. What was the original intent of this power?
   
2. What is the history on it?
   
3. How or why did this become a thing?
   
4. Who started it?
   
5. Does it work?
   
6. Why do we allow it?
   
7. Why aren't we doing anything about it?
   

I'm asking these questions as I do not see any benefit to this power, nor do I understand how it serves America.  If legislation is bad, we have a process for this.  Why do we not want to follow the process?  Why would we ever want to allow a single individual the power to circumvent the process.  Lets take it a step further and say, why would we want a single representative of a single majority, of a single party, of a single state, this much power?  Is this what the founding fathers wanted?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

For the House I think this Wikipedia section is informative on the history (last 40+ years) of the "majority of the majority" concept.

For the Senate this might be somewhat informative on where the power originates.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I'm not going to beat around the bush, but I'm also not going to attack any individual.  However, I would like to understand the value in this political move.  How does it serve the people?

What is the value in blocking legislation either through not putting it up for a vote or making it a poison pill?

Lets focus on "not putting up for a vote".  The purpose of this is to circumvent the democratic process through not even allowing elected officials to vote on possible legislation.  How could this be any less American?

1. What was the original intent of this power?
   
2. What is the history on it?
   
3. How or why did this become a thing?
   
4. Who started it?
   
5. Does it work?
   
6. Why do we allow it?
   
7. Why aren't we doing anything about it?
   

I'm asking these questions as I do not see any benefit to this power, nor do I understand how it serves America.  If legislation is bad, we have a process for this.  Why do we not want to follow the process?  Why would we ever want to allow a single individual the power to circumvent the process.  Lets take it a step further and say, why would we want a single representative of a single majority, of a single party, of a single state, this much power?  Is this what the founding fathers wanted?

I dont feel like answering all that or looking into it, but my thoughts are simple.

If a partisan bill comes from the house, I have no issues with the senate shelving it.

When a bunch of the GOP(what was it like 44?) in the house voted for it and 5 senators have vocalized support from the GOP side I completely disagree with it. 

 

[The Commish]

I'm not going to beat around the bush, but I'm also not going to attack any individual.  However, I would like to understand the value in this political move.  How does it serve the people?

What is the value in blocking legislation either through not putting it up for a vote or making it a poison pill?

Lets focus on "not putting up for a vote".  The purpose of this is to circumvent the democratic process through not even allowing elected officials to vote on possible legislation.  How could this be any less American?

1. What was the original intent of this power?
   
2. What is the history on it?
   
3. How or why did this become a thing?
   
4. Who started it?
   
5. Does it work?
   
6. Why do we allow it?
   
7. Why aren't we doing anything about it?
   

I'm asking these questions as I do not see any benefit to this power, nor do I understand how it serves America.  If legislation is bad, we have a process for this.  Why do we not want to follow the process?  Why would we ever want to allow a single individual the power to circumvent the process.  Lets take it a step further and say, why would we want a single representative of a single majority, of a single party, of a single state, this much power?  Is this what the founding fathers wanted?

The value is "I get to be lazy".  Their jobs are to negotiate and it doesn't really matter which side of Congress we are talking about.  Do your jobs and get it done.  Who cares if it's a bat#### crazy initial proposal?  See where you can find common ground and go from there.  That is LITERALLY your job.  Don't like it?  Don't sign up for the gig.  Giving these yahoos a pass on this stuff is beyond irritating.  

 

[JAA]

I dont feel like answering all that or looking into it, but my thoughts are simple.

If a partisan bill comes from the house, I have no issues with the senate shelving it.

When a bunch of the GOP(what was it like 44?) in the house voted for it and 5 senators have vocalized support from the GOP side I completely disagree with it. 

Why to the bolded?  If its partisan, why not put it to a vote?  What is the concern with this?

 

[Amused to Death]

I dont feel like answering all that or looking into it, but my thoughts are simple.

If a partisan bill comes from the house, I have no issues with the senate shelving it.

When a bunch of the GOP(what was it like 44?) in the house voted for it and 5 senators have vocalized support from the GOP side I completely disagree with it. 

Why to the bolded?  If its partisan, why not put it to a vote?  What is the concern with this?

I had something typed up but then deleted it.

But yes, even if its strictly partisan doesn't mean its completely worthless. Remember every member of Congress was voted in by their constituents to represent their interest. The job of the two chambers of Congress is to compromise, negotiate, and amend. Bring it to a vote or send it to committee. But this process of "you're going to get the credit" has completely stalled our government. As we see right now, there are over 800 bills passed by the House, many with at lease some bipartisan support, that Mitch refuses to bring to the Senate floor. This is not how our government is supposed to work. This is what we call "do nothing" politicians. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

Why to the bolded?  If its partisan, why not put it to a vote?  What is the concern with this?

Grandstanding and bad faith campaigning hot takes. Also it means the house didnt do their job so I dont see a reason to reward them. 

If it has a chance to pass then I dont like it. If it is DOA, move on. 

 

[JAA]

Why to the bolded?  If its partisan, why not put it to a vote?  What is the concern with this?

Grandstanding and bad faith campaigning hot takes. Also it means the house didnt do their job so I dont see a reason to reward them. 

If it has a chance to pass then I dont like it. If it is DOA, move on. 

Just debating here, not personal ...

Everything put forth has a chance to pass, that's the point.  Why would any single individual have the authority to halt the democratic process?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Grandstanding and bad faith campaigning hot takes. Also it means the house didnt do their job so I dont see a reason to reward them. 

If it has a chance to pass then I dont like it. If it is DOA, move on. 

I think a purely partisan bad faith, grandstanding bill from the House should be voted down by the Senate if for no other reason than to shine a bright light on it.  If it is truly that bad I think that wasting an hour or so a few times would probably slow these bills down.  Especially if in the act of grandstanding something slips by that maybe the Senate could run with in an unintended direction.  In other words if the more deliberate body can take some partisan or populist bill and turn it into something worthwhile through a tiny or even large bit of compromise.

 

[Snorkelson]

I think a purely partisan bad faith, grandstanding bill from the House should be voted down by the Senate if for no other reason than to shine a bright light on it.  If it is truly that bad I think that wasting an hour or so a few times would probably slow these bills down.  Especially if in the act of grandstanding something slips by that maybe the Senate could run with in an unintended direction.  In other words if the more deliberate body can take some partisan or populist bill and turn it into something worthwhile through a tiny or even large bit of compromise.

“Purely partisan?” 44 republicans voted in favor of this bill. Bad faith grandstanding is what Lindsey graham is doing. Saying you want $2000 checks but want an election investigation attached to the bill is the same quid pro quo he did in Ukraine only now he’s doing it to the American people.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I think a purely partisan bad faith, grandstanding bill from the House should be voted down by the Senate if for no other reason than to shine a bright light on it.  If it is truly that bad I think that wasting an hour or so a few times would probably slow these bills down.  Especially if in the act of grandstanding something slips by that maybe the Senate could run with in an unintended direction.  In other words if the more deliberate body can take some partisan or populist bill and turn it into something worthwhile through a tiny or even large bit of compromise.

I don't see how shutting down debate and throwing it out in an hour is any different?

I get that people want votes on record and I can understand that viewpoint. I dont care about that though. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

“Purely partisan?” 44 republicans voted in favor of this bill. Bad faith grandstanding is what Lindsey graham is doing. Saying you want $2000 checks but want an election investigation attached to the bill is the same quid pro quo he did in Ukraine only now he’s doing it to the American people.

Read through the conversation. I dont think anybody has called this one purely partisan. That was about other bills

 

[whoknew]

Grandstanding and bad faith campaigning hot takes. Also it means the house didnt do their job so I dont see a reason to reward them. 

If it has a chance to pass then I dont like it. If it is DOA, move on. 

How do you determine when a bill is grandstanding and in bad faith? Is Mitch McConnell the sole arbiter of that?

 

[JAA]

I don't see how shutting down debate and throwing it out in an hour is any different?

I get that people want votes on record and I can understand that viewpoint. I dont care about that though. 

Elected officials need an opportunity to show their constituents they are supporting them. Voting No is one way to do this.