Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
it's a procedure specifically intended to be used to block votes in certain situations.
But not every situation and not indefinitely. It's intended to extend an active debate, not to simply block legislation you dislike.
Er? In every situation where the majority party proposes a bill which the minority party strongly opposes and can get at least 41 people to stand against a cloture vote on. I'm not sure why you keep suggesting that it's supposed to be different.
Quote:
Quote:
The concept of the quorum is not.
The concept of a quorum is that you need a minimum number of members present.
Is there an echo in here? I keep having to repeat the same simple information to you over and over. The important question is "why". Why do we have quorum votes? Why do we have filibuster rules? The "why" of the filibuster is to do exactly what the filibuster is used to do: Block votes on measures which can't pass cloture.
Why do quorum calls exist Joph? Perhaps if you think on that a bit you'll understand why this use of the quorum by the Dems is not appropriate.
Quote:
If they're not present, you don't vote. Currently, they're not present. As I said, it's ironic that this action is extending the debate far, far more effectively than any filibuster has in years.
If by debate you mean the Democrats looking like spoiled children and quite possibly the end of public sector unions in this country due to them looking like douche bags as well, then yes, I suppose we've had a whole bunch of "debate". You do realize that no one outside of the liberal blogosphere bubble thinks that the protesters/unions (since they are the same in this case) are gaining any support by doing this, or that the Dems are are accomplishing anything more than handing an even greater victory to the GOP next year.
By all means "debate" away!