5 ms·

The reality is more nuanced--the time to stop this legislation was by preventing it coming to vote in the senate. Typically the senate needs 60 votes to forcefu

by 0xa 10y ago

The reality is more nuanced--the time to stop this legislation was by preventing it coming to vote in the senate. Typically the senate needs 60 votes to forcefully end debate[0], then merely majority to pass it. Once can disguise support for a bill by approving to end debate, then voting "Nay" given it will get the necessary 50 to be approved. For JS 34 [1] Mitch McConnell (R, KY) limited debate to 10 minutes--I'm unclear from the transcript exactly how this was allowed. Richard Blumenthal (D, CT) offered resistance to limiting debate, and Kamala Harris (D, CA) and Patrick Leahy (D, VT) requested the role be called several times as a delaying tactic, but the limiting of debate went through. Just prior to the vote, Brian Schatz (D, HI) offered some debate, but this is cosmetic given the known votes. My read there is little to be gained by trying to legislate implementation power that has been ceded to the executive branch and the various agencies that are run by appointment, and therefore a costly filibuster and fight was not worth the time, effort and political mud. [0] https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/577d2a5e-2b47-4045-95fa-a76398e41461.pdf https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/577d2a5e-2b47-4045-95fa-a7639... [1] https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2017/03/23/senate-section/article/S1942-4 https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2017/03/23/sen...

waqf 10y ago
"forcibly", not "forcefully": http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/forceful.html http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/forceful.html
- AlexB138 10y ago
  People don't seem to like this comment, but that is a great link. Browsing around the site, I found this list of common English language errors: http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html Really interesting. Thanks for sharing.
  - 3131s 10y ago
    Most of those are made up prescriptive guidelines, mixed in with some common misspellings. One grumpy person does not get to decide how the rest of us choose to use and evolve language. The "forceful" / "forcible" example is particularly inane and pedantic but hardly the worst on that page. I'll continue to say "being that", "ice tea", "center around", etc. as I please. In linguistics the illustrative analogy is that prescriptivism is akin to an anthropologist entering into a foreign culture and rather than simply observing, they instruct the members of this culture on how to cook, dress, cut their hair, etc. Most modern dictionaries (including the Oxford English dictionary) take a descriptive approach to the study of language.
    - defined 10y ago
      > I'll continue to say... as I please. By that argument, we should all just be able to say and write whatever we want however we want to, even if it's technically or factually incorrect, like Humpty Dumpty or Donald Trump. Why bother hewing to "elitist" rules of grammar and accepted spellings, being that it's just prescriptivism? How does one decide objectively if something is just plain wrong, or merely prescriptive? Case in point: "premises". So many people treat this singular noun as a plural and use horrors like "on-premise", which is so utterly wrong that it is painful for me to look at. What's worse is that "premise" is a real word and an entirely different thing and is most definitely not the singular of "premises". This word came about (as many English words do) as a corruption of the Latin "praemissus", meaning something like "the aforementioned", and was used often in legal agreements for properties, and so became a word in itself that meant "the property". Now we are corrupting it yet again, this time without the excuse of it being a different language, on the basis that "I'll say it however I please." People I have mentioned this to have told me that it is so difficult to get people to use the right word that they've just gone with "on-prem". Now readers can take this comment as the rant of a "grammar nazi" or a pedant, but it wasn't meant that way, and I'll respond in advance with this: why is it not ok to identify something that is wrong? Because it's mere nitpicking? Maybe so - but that's how matters devolve, over the decades, back to widespread ignorance and intolerance: one little oversight at a time. Sorry, I didn't mean to get on the soapbox - sometimes it's just frustrating for those of us who are perhaps overly detail-oriented. But the world needs "pedantic" people like us more than it likes to admit.
      - peteretep 10y ago
        > write whatever we want > however we want to You have conflated two separate things. > being that it's just > prescriptivism The irony of course being that "being that" in the way you've used it is one of the examples of "incorrect English" given by the op. And you're using it to support the idea that these things are important... > This word came about ... as a > corruption ... without the excuse > of it being a different language You have some unorthodox ideas about how language came into being.
- 0xa 10y ago
  I'm happy to learn more about the English language -- thanks for the link!
mayneack 10y ago
I don't quite agree with "typically". The numbers of filibusters (and cloture votes) has radically increased in recent history, but I'm not sure if you can really call it the default behavior yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate#21st_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_State... https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/... Also, it's not even applied to 50% of resolutions: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics
entee 10y ago
You can't do that for rule repeals, they are only subject to a majority vote in the senate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act Relevant section: The law provides a procedure for expedited consideration in the Senate. If the committee to which a joint resolution is referred has not reported it out within 20 calendar days after referral, it may be discharged from further consideration by a written petition of 30 Members of the Senate, at which point the measure is placed on the calendar, and it is in order at any time for a Senator to move to proceed to the joint resolution.[7] If the Senate agrees to the motion to proceed, debate on the floor is limited to 10 hours and no amendments to the resolution or motions to proceed to other business are in order, and so the Senate may pass the joint resolution with a simple majority.[7] A joint resolution of disapproval meeting certain criteria cannot be filibustered.[8]
- makomk 10y ago
  Probably with good reason too, since if I'm understanding the US system correctly proposed regulations are created by unelected officials and can come into effect without any congressional vote whatsoever. Allowing filibustering of CRA votes would mean that regulations could be created despite the majority of the Senate and House strongly opposing them.
  - ascagnel_ 10y ago
    Not really -- rulemaking from the executive branch agencies is supposed to be what takes laws and implements them into concrete policy. The CRA is supposed to allow Congress the ability to void the rules that are perceived as going against the spirit of the law that was passed. I haven't seen any reporting on a specific law that these rules were tied to, but I have seen references made to laws predating the public internet that mandate privacy on phone calls that.
nebabyte 10y ago
> requested the role be called roll
- defined 10y ago
  Thank you, fellow detail-oriented person.
gojiberry 10y ago
You must have voted for Trump. The spin is good.

by 0xa 10y ago

waqf 10y ago

"forcibly", not "forcefully": http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/forceful.html http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/forceful.html

AlexB138 10y ago
People don't seem to like this comment, but that is a great link. Browsing around the site, I found this list of common English language errors: http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html Really interesting. Thanks for sharing.
- 3131s 10y ago
  Most of those are made up prescriptive guidelines, mixed in with some common misspellings. One grumpy person does not get to decide how the rest of us choose to use and evolve language. The "forceful" / "forcible" example is particularly inane and pedantic but hardly the worst on that page. I'll continue to say "being that", "ice tea", "center around", etc. as I please. In linguistics the illustrative analogy is that prescriptivism is akin to an anthropologist entering into a foreign culture and rather than simply observing, they instruct the members of this culture on how to cook, dress, cut their hair, etc. Most modern dictionaries (including the Oxford English dictionary) take a descriptive approach to the study of language.
  - defined 10y ago
    > I'll continue to say... as I please. By that argument, we should all just be able to say and write whatever we want however we want to, even if it's technically or factually incorrect, like Humpty Dumpty or Donald Trump. Why bother hewing to "elitist" rules of grammar and accepted spellings, being that it's just prescriptivism? How does one decide objectively if something is just plain wrong, or merely prescriptive? Case in point: "premises". So many people treat this singular noun as a plural and use horrors like "on-premise", which is so utterly wrong that it is painful for me to look at. What's worse is that "premise" is a real word and an entirely different thing and is most definitely not the singular of "premises". This word came about (as many English words do) as a corruption of the Latin "praemissus", meaning something like "the aforementioned", and was used often in legal agreements for properties, and so became a word in itself that meant "the property". Now we are corrupting it yet again, this time without the excuse of it being a different language, on the basis that "I'll say it however I please." People I have mentioned this to have told me that it is so difficult to get people to use the right word that they've just gone with "on-prem". Now readers can take this comment as the rant of a "grammar nazi" or a pedant, but it wasn't meant that way, and I'll respond in advance with this: why is it not ok to identify something that is wrong? Because it's mere nitpicking? Maybe so - but that's how matters devolve, over the decades, back to widespread ignorance and intolerance: one little oversight at a time. Sorry, I didn't mean to get on the soapbox - sometimes it's just frustrating for those of us who are perhaps overly detail-oriented. But the world needs "pedantic" people like us more than it likes to admit.
    - peteretep 10y ago
      > write whatever we want > however we want to You have conflated two separate things. > being that it's just > prescriptivism The irony of course being that "being that" in the way you've used it is one of the examples of "incorrect English" given by the op. And you're using it to support the idea that these things are important... > This word came about ... as a > corruption ... without the excuse > of it being a different language You have some unorthodox ideas about how language came into being.
0xa 10y ago
I'm happy to learn more about the English language -- thanks for the link!

mayneack 10y ago

I don't quite agree with "typically". The numbers of filibusters (and cloture votes) has radically increased in recent history, but I'm not sure if you can really call it the default behavior yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate#21st_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_State... https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/... Also, it's not even applied to 50% of resolutions: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics

entee 10y ago

You can't do that for rule repeals, they are only subject to a majority vote in the senate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act Relevant section: The law provides a procedure for expedited consideration in the Senate. If the committee to which a joint resolution is referred has not reported it out within 20 calendar days after referral, it may be discharged from further consideration by a written petition of 30 Members of the Senate, at which point the measure is placed on the calendar, and it is in order at any time for a Senator to move to proceed to the joint resolution.[7] If the Senate agrees to the motion to proceed, debate on the floor is limited to 10 hours and no amendments to the resolution or motions to proceed to other business are in order, and so the Senate may pass the joint resolution with a simple majority.[7] A joint resolution of disapproval meeting certain criteria cannot be filibustered.[8]

makomk 10y ago
Probably with good reason too, since if I'm understanding the US system correctly proposed regulations are created by unelected officials and can come into effect without any congressional vote whatsoever. Allowing filibustering of CRA votes would mean that regulations could be created despite the majority of the Senate and House strongly opposing them.
- ascagnel_ 10y ago
  Not really -- rulemaking from the executive branch agencies is supposed to be what takes laws and implements them into concrete policy. The CRA is supposed to allow Congress the ability to void the rules that are perceived as going against the spirit of the law that was passed. I haven't seen any reporting on a specific law that these rules were tied to, but I have seen references made to laws predating the public internet that mandate privacy on phone calls that.

nebabyte 10y ago

> requested the role be called roll

defined 10y ago
Thank you, fellow detail-oriented person.

gojiberry 10y ago

You must have voted for Trump. The spin is good.