3 ms·
My understanding is that it's a way to game the system of legislative procedure. Basically if the original bill went through certain steps in the process (like
by BrenBarn 2y ago
My understanding is that it's a way to game the system of legislative procedure. Basically if the original bill went through certain steps in the process (like committee votes), the gutted-and-amended one still "counts" as having gone through those steps, and doesn't have to start over. This means it can be passed more quickly. In theory there are ways to insist that it must start over, but in practice it's not done.
- m463 2y agosort of how software updates work after an app sellout happens.
- renewiltord 2y agoHaha, that's perfect. Or the Boeing 737 MAX.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago> This means it can be passed more quickly. Is that a goal here? I'm hypothesizing that this maneuver has been done in order to withdraw the original bill, not in order to pass the new bill. I assume that if the new bill fails, the maneuver will have succeeded. The question is why this was easier than actually killing the original bill.