Cheers. They could do with using catchier names for these bills, propositions or whatever you want to call them! It'd help them stick in the old noggin more easily.
Whilst aware of what was going on, the exact names of these particular pieces of legislation had escaped me.
It's Texas and they are white, straight, men. What did you expect? That said though Dallas and Houston are much more liberal places than people think. Been there a few times. Very nice.
You would be surprised, the border cities account for quite a bit of the population., and there is a huge hispanic population.
So Texas isn't necessarily this racist white state everyone thinks... there are a lot of non-white republicans.
If they want abortion to be illegal or restricted, and its democratic then why not? if that's what the people want, they should get it, just cos British people are so liberal and uptight about these things doesn't mean its either right or wrong.
You would be surprised, the border cities account for quite a bit of the population., and there is a huge hispanic population.
So Texas isn't necessarily this racist white state everyone thinks... there are a lot of non-white republicans.
If they want abortion to be illegal or restricted, and its democratic then why not? if that's what the people want, they should get it, just cos British people are so liberal and uptight about these things doesn't mean its either right or wrong.
Liberal? Uptight? Its about a woman having the choice to do damn well what she wants with HER body.
You would be surprised, the border cities account for quite a bit of the population., and there is a huge hispanic population.
So Texas isn't necessarily this racist white state everyone thinks... there are a lot of non-white republicans.
If they want abortion to be illegal or restricted, and its democratic then why not? if that's what the people want, they should get it, just cos British people are so liberal and uptight about these things doesn't mean its either right or wrong.
Liberal? Uptight? Its about a woman having the choice to do damn well what she wants with HER body.
But he is right in that if it is a democratic decision and is voted on then it has to stand, that's how democracy works, even if you don't agree with the decision is passed.
Different countries with different attitudes.
Also, with these things, public opinion is what is important. If a democratic decision is made then that reflects public opinion.
The answer for those who disagree with the democratic decision is not to derail democracy for their own ends but to work towards shifting public opinion so that the democratic decision works in their favour.
On the issue I agree with Wendy Davis, but I think both she and the republicans used cheap tactics.. it's not right that these kind of tactics can have effect.
I'm not a big fan of the filibuster, but I understand the uses. In the federal government, it results in having to form a more robust majority vote in order to get a bill passed. Basically this means that the majority party has to work with the minority party in order to get something controversial past. Which equals (ideally) more discussion and compromise.
I'm not sure how Texas Senate rules work or what they require for cloture (vote to end debate)
Interesting stuff. I'm glad she did it - the law would have reduce Texas' number of abortion clinics from 40ish to like 4. Ouch.
So talking for 11 hours straight in a blatant attempt to prevent a democratic vote taking place isn't cheating?
Technically, no. Its in the rules that she is allowed to do it. It may be a stupid rule, but it's a rule nonetheless.
I suppose if you're in a minority (democrat in Texas, woman in the government, etc) you'll use whatever tools are available to you in order to stop what you see as a trampling of your rights.
I'm not mad at her for fighting hard for what she thinks is right.
I'm not a big fan of the filibuster, but I understand the uses. In the federal government, it results in having to form a more robust majority vote in order to get a bill passed. Basically this means that the majority party has to work with the minority party in order to get something controversial past. Which equals (ideally) more discussion and compromise.
How can you have more discussion when one speaker refuses to shut up?
Technically, no. Its in the rules that she is allowed to do it. It may be a stupid rule, but it's a rule nonetheless.
I suppose if you're in a minority (democrat in Texas, woman in the government, etc) you'll use whatever tools are available to you in order to stop what you see as a trampling of your rights.
I'm not mad at her for fighting hard for what she thinks is right.
I understand fighting for what you believe in. I agree with her stance entirely, but it is trying to derail democratic process.
I also don't believe derailment works, shifting public opinion and raising awareness on topics that can resonate with your opponents (and more importantly those who exist somewhere in the middle) is how it should work.
How can you have more discussion when one speaker refuses to shut up?
From what I understand of how it works on the federal level, it means that a super majority of 3/5ths of the Senate can vote to stop the filibuster. This is 60 senators as each us state has 2. This means that a small minority can shut down the vote on a controversial bill until such time as a 3/5 majority can be reached. This then requires the bill to have more broad support in the Senate.
Basically it means that the majority party has to want to pass the bill they have to reach out to the minority party to get it done.
In this case I'd agree, however I have a come across a number of (partcularly) American politicians or politically motivated people who would class themselves as being liberal that don't appear to fit what the word actually means. They can be uptight.
An easy example would be the mayor of New York who banned pop from being sold in containers that go above a certain size. I'd have thought that a liberal in the true sense of the word would live and let live when it came to such trivialities.
You can tell who's never heard of filibustering before
Yeah, it's a bit ridiculous, but it's a major part of US politics and has been for decades. It's not comparable at all to what the Republicans tried to do, which is illegal.
I understand fighting for what you believe in. I agree with her stance entirely, but it is trying to derail democratic process.
No it's not. It's part of the legal democratic process (in the US), with rules guiding its use and so on. You might think it's unfair or undemocratic, but it is actually part of how the US democratic system works.
(Plus, you know, you can't justify taking away people's human rights in the name of "democracy" anyway, and bodily autonomy's a pretty basic human right.)
Technically, no. Its in the rules that she is allowed to do it. It may be a stupid rule, but it's a rule nonetheless.
I suppose if you're in a minority (democrat in Texas, woman in the government, etc) you'll use whatever tools are available to you in order to stop what you see as a trampling of your rights.
I'm not mad at her for fighting hard for what she thinks is right.
As someone else stated, it's still a blatant attempt to derail a democratic process.
No it's not. It's part of the legal democratic process (in the US), with rules guiding its use and so on. You might think it's unfair or undemocratic, but it is actually part of how the US democratic system works.
(Plus, you know, you can't justify taking away people's human rights in the name of "democracy" anyway, and bodily autonomy's a pretty basic human right.)
I'm not familiar with the term so I can only take it on face value. I think the end result if she hadn't have done it would have been unfair but I also don't agree with derailing democracy.
I'm not sure if I am comfortable with picking and choosing when democracy should stand based on my own opinions though.
I agree with your latter point really, you shouldn't take away peoples rights. It's wrong, but at the same time isn't democracy about majority rule?
Also would such a thing actually get through, if it's removing peoples rights wouldn't it then be met with such strong opposition as to end up blocking it?
You can kind of apply the same to gay marriage and things. I don't agree with the stance in the USA but the democratic process is how their decisions will be decided and anything other undermines that.
I'm not familiar with the term so I can only take it on face value.
I agree with your latter point really, you shouldn't take away peoples rights. It's wrong, but at the same time isn't democracy about majority rule?
Also would such a thing actually get through, if it's removing peoples rights wouldn't it then be met with such strong opposition as to end up blocking it?
You can kind of apply the same to gay marriage and things. I don't agree with the stance in the USA but the democratic process is how their decisions will be decided and anything other undermines that.
Looking through the wiki page, it's actually quite interesting! First person to use a filibuster was Caesar, apparently And we use roughly the same thing in the UK sometimes but call it "talking out" a bill - was done last year to the Daylight Savings Bill!
Mostly, "democracy" doesn't actually boil down to everyone having a vote on everything, because that way just leads to horrific treatment of minorities/ those who don't have the vote. Your MP/ senator represents you to the best of their ability, but they don't actually have to go with what the majority of their constituents want on any given issue - the only power constituents really have is to vote them out at the next election. If they think, eg, that serving their gay constituents by giving them equality is more important than serving their homophobic constituents by denying gay equality, they can totally do that.
And this bill that was being put forth in Texas wasn't to stop abortion, it was to apply a narrow set of conditions as to what would be allowed to be a clinic, and would have meant that there would be only a handful of abortion providers for the roughly 13-14 million women living in Texas.
So not only was this bill taking a shot at women's reproductive rights, it was also hurting the poor and others who were unable to access a perfectly legal procedure.
Comments
Cheers. They could do with using catchier names for these bills, propositions or whatever you want to call them! It'd help them stick in the old noggin more easily.
Whilst aware of what was going on, the exact names of these particular pieces of legislation had escaped me.
You would be surprised, the border cities account for quite a bit of the population., and there is a huge hispanic population.
So Texas isn't necessarily this racist white state everyone thinks... there are a lot of non-white republicans.
If they want abortion to be illegal or restricted, and its democratic then why not? if that's what the people want, they should get it, just cos British people are so liberal and uptight about these things doesn't mean its either right or wrong.
Liberal? Uptight? Its about a woman having the choice to do damn well what she wants with HER body.
Oxymoron.
But he is right in that if it is a democratic decision and is voted on then it has to stand, that's how democracy works, even if you don't agree with the decision is passed.
Different countries with different attitudes.
Also, with these things, public opinion is what is important. If a democratic decision is made then that reflects public opinion.
The answer for those who disagree with the democratic decision is not to derail democracy for their own ends but to work towards shifting public opinion so that the democratic decision works in their favour.
Hear hear
So talking for 11 hours straight in a blatant attempt to prevent a democratic vote taking place isn't cheating?
I'm not sure how Texas Senate rules work or what they require for cloture (vote to end debate)
Interesting stuff. I'm glad she did it - the law would have reduce Texas' number of abortion clinics from 40ish to like 4. Ouch.
Technically, no. Its in the rules that she is allowed to do it. It may be a stupid rule, but it's a rule nonetheless.
I suppose if you're in a minority (democrat in Texas, woman in the government, etc) you'll use whatever tools are available to you in order to stop what you see as a trampling of your rights.
I'm not mad at her for fighting hard for what she thinks is right.
How can you have more discussion when one speaker refuses to shut up?
I understand fighting for what you believe in. I agree with her stance entirely, but it is trying to derail democratic process.
I also don't believe derailment works, shifting public opinion and raising awareness on topics that can resonate with your opponents (and more importantly those who exist somewhere in the middle) is how it should work.
From what I understand of how it works on the federal level, it means that a super majority of 3/5ths of the Senate can vote to stop the filibuster. This is 60 senators as each us state has 2. This means that a small minority can shut down the vote on a controversial bill until such time as a 3/5 majority can be reached. This then requires the bill to have more broad support in the Senate.
Basically it means that the majority party has to want to pass the bill they have to reach out to the minority party to get it done.
In this case I'd agree, however I have a come across a number of (partcularly) American politicians or politically motivated people who would class themselves as being liberal that don't appear to fit what the word actually means. They can be uptight.
An easy example would be the mayor of New York who banned pop from being sold in containers that go above a certain size. I'd have thought that a liberal in the true sense of the word would live and let live when it came to such trivialities.
Yeah, it's a bit ridiculous, but it's a major part of US politics and has been for decades. It's not comparable at all to what the Republicans tried to do, which is illegal.
(Plus, you know, you can't justify taking away people's human rights in the name of "democracy" anyway, and bodily autonomy's a pretty basic human right.)
As someone else stated, it's still a blatant attempt to derail a democratic process.
She's an idiot.
I'm not familiar with the term so I can only take it on face value. I think the end result if she hadn't have done it would have been unfair but I also don't agree with derailing democracy.
I'm not sure if I am comfortable with picking and choosing when democracy should stand based on my own opinions though.
I agree with your latter point really, you shouldn't take away peoples rights. It's wrong, but at the same time isn't democracy about majority rule?
Also would such a thing actually get through, if it's removing peoples rights wouldn't it then be met with such strong opposition as to end up blocking it?
You can kind of apply the same to gay marriage and things. I don't agree with the stance in the USA but the democratic process is how their decisions will be decided and anything other undermines that.
Looking through the wiki page, it's actually quite interesting! First person to use a filibuster was Caesar, apparently
Mostly, "democracy" doesn't actually boil down to everyone having a vote on everything, because that way just leads to horrific treatment of minorities/ those who don't have the vote. Your MP/ senator represents you to the best of their ability, but they don't actually have to go with what the majority of their constituents want on any given issue - the only power constituents really have is to vote them out at the next election. If they think, eg, that serving their gay constituents by giving them equality is more important than serving their homophobic constituents by denying gay equality, they can totally do that.
Such as choosing to use one of the countless contraceptives available to avoid becoming pregnant in the first place?
Before anyone starts bleating on, yes, that comment excludes rape victims etc etc.
Contraceptives aren't 100% certain. Plus people make mistakes sometimes.
I just don't think, as a man, I have the right to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies. It's highly arrogant.
of course every contraceptive method is 100%, absolutely reliable and nobody has ever become pregnant while using them.
So not only was this bill taking a shot at women's reproductive rights, it was also hurting the poor and others who were unable to access a perfectly legal procedure.