This woman [idahostatesman.com] is my godmother. Damn, I'm proud of her.

(after reading article mentioning "silencing the voice of the people") It can't just be me that realises that if I couldn't really give a damn about something I am not going to do anything towards/against it?

Man politics sucks arse.

How can politicians be so self indulgent that they think anyone cares enough about some bollocky crap that some other guy spurned out of their arse to save votes?

Surely if you were a politician you would make _this_ a serious legislative issue: If no more than <arbitrary number > percent of the populace turn out to vote for something it is no longer worthy of interest, and any following of the issue will cause you to be stepped down.

I don't, a marriage certificate from San Francisco sounds more "romantic" than Boise to me.

(And for the Unpopular Opinions party, it's mea37...)

On the one hand, maybe her reasons are her stated reasons (cost and redundency of pursuing the issue). I'm not familiar enough with state-level politics (or specifically Idaho state politics) to know whether that sort of decision is the intended domain of her authority, but for the sake of argument: if it is, she'd be taking what may be a sensible stand. Then again, when it comes to picking your battles, it might not be wise to kick up a major political storm on those grounds.

On the other hand, maybe she's taking a pro-gay-marriage stand and using cost/redundency issues to legitimize the move. That would be a mixed bag. It makes her action a stand on principle, for which the greater risks are still respectable. On the other hand, it would be an activist abuse of authority, with which I can't agree even when it's used to ends with which I agree. (What would you say if a conservative in a key position used procedure to derail an equal-rights measure even though it had popular and governmental support? This kind of action cuts both ways.)

So, one way or the other, she's taking a stand a lot of people wouldn't take, and in this instance I do favor the likely outcome (in that I oppose any constitutional ban on gay marriage), but I find it hard to get behind this action.

In Response to mea37 (#14395):

Idaho politics are very conservative. Sheila is one of the rare Democrats in the Idaho state senate. She is taking an unpopular stand on principle and using reasoning (redundancy and cost) that may appeal to some of the conservatives and may make her stand palatable to the majority.

This is perhaps not politically the riskiest move for her since she will not seek reelection and is moving to Hawaii after her term is up. Same sex marriage is currently legal in Hawaii [hawaiigayweddings.com].

What would you say if a conservative in a key position used procedure to derail an equal-rights measure even though it had popular and governmental support? This kind of action cuts both ways.

I'm having a difficult time coming up with a way to argue with your specific example. I consider the sudden need to manipulate our core documents of government, state and federal constitutions, to ban gay marriage extremist. Efforts aimed at constitutional bans on gay marriage are anti-equal-rights measures.

In Response to Oedipa_Maas (#14401):

I consider the sudden need to manipulate our core documents of government, state and federal constitutions, to ban gay marriage extremist.
Efforts aimed at constitutional bans on gay marriage are anti-equal-rights measures.

I agree, but it's not up to one person to draw that distinction. The reason higher-level laws require more support is to protect them from extreme views. In theory, a view would have to become pretty main-stream before the constitution could be affected (at the national level, anyway; again I don't really know how Idaho works).

Keep in mind, in times of slavery a lot of people thought of equality for blacks as extremist.

No government system is perfect. That isn't a plug for anarchy; anarchy is one of the least perfect approaches. A democratic republic is a pretty good system, but you take the good with the bad. The bad is that even when you know you're right, you've got to let the other guy have his voice in government. If you don't stick to that principle, then the other guy doesn't owe the same to you when he's in a position of authority. A republic can break down into an oligarchy without much difficulty.

In Response to mea37 (#14408):

An Oligarchy? Wow. I haven't heard anybody use that word in a sentence since ancient history in high school, but speaking of oligarchy [commondreams.org] how can you be sure that it hasn't gotten there yet when this guy [nydailynews.com] is in charge?

In Response to mea37 (#14395):

(What would you say if a conservative in a key position used procedure to derail an equal-rights measure even though it had popular and governmental support? This kind of action cuts both ways.)

They do. Regularly.

Look, I'm not an expert on American political processes, but attempting to fillibuster laws you don't agree with is so common in the rest of the democratic world that I can't believe it isn't normal in the US. But, if the law has sufficient popular and political support, the fillibuster will eventually fail.

I mean, suppose this particular attempt to amend the constitution fails because one person uses procedure to derail it. Are its supporters going to give up? Then the amendment had no support anyway. Or are they going to fight on, and get it passed another way?

So, not only is it correct to use any means possible to delay an amendment you strongly disagree with, but by doing so you are subjecting the amendment to scrutiny as to whether there really is the political and popular will to implement it anyway.

Cheers,
Graham

In Response to albionsoft (#14416):

So, not only is it correct to use any means possible to delay an amendment you strongly disagree with, but by doing so you are subjecting the amendment to scrutiny as to whether there really is the political and popular will to implement it anyway.

Not only that, but doing so is exactly what the U.S. elected representatives are paid to do.

It's their job to act on our behalf without consulting us, using their own best judgement and personal opinions and motivations.

Not only is all politics local, all politics is special interest.

In Response to albionsoft (#14416):

They do. Regularly.

Really? And what equal rights measures would those be?

I'll assume you didn't mean to address my example specifically; still, you didn't even answer my question. Are you implying that you never complain when someone you disagree with pulls a stunt like that?

attempting to fillibuster laws you don't agree with is so common

"Common" and "correct" are not the same thing.

not only is it correct to use any means possible to delay an amendment you strongly disagree with, but by doing so you are subjecting the amendment to scrutiny

Cheating the system doesn't increase scrutiny; it forces your opponent to cheat the system. The system is designed to provide scrutiny. When everyone's using "any means possible" to force their point of view, they end up circumventing provisions that provide scrutiny.

For example, the instance that started all this: the delay tactic was to refuse to hold a public hearing. The most direct approach by which conservatives can proceed is to circumvent the need for a public hearing. How would that increase scrutiny?

What an "any means possible" battle over a law proves is depth of support for the law (i.e. those who support it really support it, and they are tenacious); it does not show breadth of support (i.e. most of the constituency supports it), which is the valid deciding factor.

Here in Missouri, we have legal riverboat gambling, not because of great popular support, but because the people who did support it kept putting it up for votes until it got through.

More recently, our assembly passed concealed carry and over-rode a veto from the governor even though such a measure failed popular referendum a few years back. Opponents tried to delay enactment of the law by toying with the funding mechanism. Increase scrutiny, you say? Well, no; actually it caused supporters who want licenses to apply for them out-of-state -- because, as with drivers licenses, MO respects out-of-state concealed-carry permits -- which means they don't have to meet Missouri training requirements.

Does either measure have true popular support here? We'll never know, because it no longer matters.

In Response to zamphir (#14419):

It's also their job to do those things withint the constraints of the system we've laid out for them. It's also their job, when granted special authority, to use that authority for its intended purpose only, and not to use it for the advancement of their own agenda.

In Response to mea37 (#14421):

to use that authority for its intended purpose only, and not to use it for the advancement of their own agenda

Why do you insist these things are different?

Every elected official is elected for the sole purpose of advancing their own agenda, at least in this country and any other country that has a Representative Democracy.

That's what the "representative" part means.

To argue that in one case they are "using their authority for it's intended purpose" and in another case that they are "advancing their own agenda" is to argue about their motivations.

And motivations are impossible to prove.

In Response to mea37 (#14421):

withint the constraints of the system we've laid out for them
Show me where filibuster is outside the constraints of the system we've laid out for them.

In Response to mea37 (#14420):

I'm not going to respond directly to a single one of your points. Most of them are America - even Missouri - specific, and I (as a Briton) lack the knowledge to discuss them.

I will, however, make various accusations based on the post to which I am replying...

1. You don't know what the system is. Fillibusters are part of the system. Has the woman in question acted illegally to delay the legislation? Or has she acted within the powers she has been legally granted? If the former, say so. If the latter, she is acting within the system, not cheating it. If she was not meant to use certain powers, she shouldn't be given them.

2. We disagree about democracy. To me, democracy is a means to an end. I don't give a fig whether a given piece of legislation has broad support or not. You seem to believe that if legislation lacks broad support, it shouldn't pass. Rubbish! If a minority can give a strong, coherent case, and have the passion to get it passed, why is that wrong? After all, the fact it passed proves there was not overwhelming opposition...

3. You don't understand scrutiny. A fillibuster forces legislation to take longer. That has two effects - it prolongs public debate, and it means that time must be spent on this bill instead of others. Either of these can cause a bill to lose support, even kill it outright. A fillibuster leads to scrutiny both by the media/public, and by forcing both sides to re-examine their commitment to the bill.

Cheers,
Graham

In Response to zamphir (#14422):

You're confusing the authority that comes with election to the assembly with the authority that comes with appointment to a post within the assembly.

All assembly-persons are expected to have the same authority as assembly-persons, and you might argue that they are expected to wield that authority in any way possible to further the agenda of their constituency. That's called equal representation; it means one district gets the same voice as the others.

Particular assembly-persons are entrusted by appointment within the assembly with various responsibilities. Often these are procedural matters that someone has to handle. So someone is given that job, and that someone is expected to carry it out to further the process -- not to further their own political position. In really oganized systems (can't speak for Idaho either way), the purpose and guidelines for executing that authority are clearly spelled out in the job description.

In my view, if the people's representatives can't keep those two roles separate, then the procedural role should go to someone who isn't tasked with the role of an assembly-person.

In Response to zamphir (#14423):

That has to be taken on a case-by-case basis; so let's look at this case:

An individual is appointed to a position

For purposes of carrying out the duties of that position, the individual gets the power to do "X"

That person uses the power to do "X" for political purposes, rather than for the furtherence of his/her duties in the appointed position.

That person is working outside the system, because the system attached a purpose to the power granted to the appointed post.

In Response to albionsoft (#14424):

Interesting that you've shifted away from the issues and toward telling me what I do or don't know. We probably both know the word for that. Your excuse of being unaware of issues local to me is irrelevant; if anything it means that you are ill-equipped to comment on what I've said.

Now, hopefully we have that out of our systems. I will respond to your specific arguments, even though you did not show that courtesy to me.

1. You don't know what the system is. Fillibusters are part of the system.

Voting is part of the system, too. That doesn't mean that every possible application of "voting" is part of the system. If someone tried to set up a vote to ban a particular assembly-person from session, that would be outside the system even though "voting" is part of the system.

Similarly, the instance of fillibuster we're discussing is outside the system even if we stipulate that fillibuster as a concept is part of the system.

Has the woman in question acted illegally to delay the legislation? Or has she acted within the powers she has been legally granted? If the former, say so. If the latter, she is acting within the system, not cheating it. If she was not meant to use certain powers, she shouldn't be given them.

That suggests that a power granted is an absolute power. That would mean that the attourney general could choose when to press charges based on whatever criteria he might choose. If he's racist, then that would make it ok for him to press for the harshest possible penalty against blacks while turning a blind eye toward crime by whites. After all, if he wasn't meant ot use the power, he shouldn't have been given it, right?

Power is granted with a purpose. There are goals that the grantee is expected to further with that power and there are criteria that he or she is expected to apply in deciding how to exercise that power. Often there is no inflexible, black-and-white decision-making procedure; if that were possible (or desirable), the grant of power wouldn't be necessary. Nonetheless, the person granted the power is acting wrongly to exercise that power other than for its intended purpose.

The power she exercised was granted legally, but (according to what's been said here about her motivation), she has exercised it in a manner inconsistent with the duties for which it was granted.

2. We disagree about democracy. To me, democracy is a means to an end. I don't give a fig whether a given piece of legislation has broad support or not.

Yes, we disagree. It's a means to an end, but we disagree about what that end is. Around here, democracy is held up as the best approximation of self-government. Someone got it in his head that the right of government belongs to the governed; hence, majority rule settles disputes. If a piece of legislation lacks broad support, then it isn't the will of the governed.

I'm unclear what end it is you think democracy serves.

If a minority can give a strong, coherent case, and have the passion to get it passed, why is that wrong?

If the case were strong and coherent, it should win out -- by way of convincing the majority that the case is correct. If it fails to do that, then it wasn't strong enough or coherent enough to win in a democracy.

After all, the fact it passed proves there was not overwhelming opposition...

Any re-shaping of government is ok so long as there isn't overwhelming opposition to it? Demonstrably untrue, but since you refuse to comment on specific examples, I don't guess I should bother.

3. You don't understand scrutiny. A fillibuster forces legislation to take longer. That has two effects - it prolongs public debate, and it means that time must be spent on this bill instead of others. Either of these can cause a bill to lose support, even kill it outright. A fillibuster leads to scrutiny both by the media/public, and by forcing both sides to re-examine their commitment to the bill.

A nice theory, but...

Read the rest of this comment...

In Response to mea37 (#14426):

That person uses the power to do "X" for political purposes, rather than for the furtherence of his/her duties in the appointed position.

How do you propose to distinguish between the two?

Again, you're discussing motivations behind actions. Otherwise, you wouldn't be saying "do 'X' for 'Y'", you'd be saying "do 'X'".

I do not know the specific terms of office for the Chair of the Senate State Affairs Committee. However, every other committee Chair I've heard of has been granted the power to set the agenda for any given meeting, and to determine in one manner or another what business is properly the business of the commitee.

Now, there may be specific legislated procedures for how and when the committee Chair can put a specific item or not put a specific item on the agenda for any given meeting.

But absent any specific information to the contrary, I believe we have to assume that the Chair in question is fully acting within the legal bounds of the position.

That person is working outside the system, because the system attached a purpose to the power granted to the appointed post.

Usually, and again this may be different in the specific case, the purpose attached to the powers granted to the Chair of a committee is to ensure that the proper business of the committee gets done in the manner proscribed.

Given that motivations are so very very hard to prove, usually they are left out of rules, regulations, and procedures for conducting business.

In Response to mea37 (#14425):

You're confusing the authority that comes with election to the assembly with the authority that comes with appointment to a post within the assembly.

Actually, no, I'm not.

I was specifically discussing the authority that comes with an election to an assembly, and not the authority that comes with appointment to a post within the assembly.

This is because you did not specify in your original comments which set of authorities you were discussing.

So someone is given that job, and that someone is expected to carry it out to further the process -- not to further their own political position. In really oganized systems (can't speak for Idaho either way), the purpose and guidelines for executing that authority are clearly spelled out in the job description

Again, how do you propose to distinguish between "furthering the process" and "furthering their own political position"? In an ideal situation, would not the people view a person who fulfilled their duties with competance and otherwise did a good job at "furthering the process" as a person who should therefore be reelected?

So, how is it possible to "further the process" without "furthering their own political position"?

In my view, if the people's representatives can't keep those two roles separate, then the procedural role should go to someone who isn't tasked with the role of an assembly-person.

And how should this procedural role be staffed? Political appointment? Election? As a promotion from within the ranks of the existing bureaucracy? As an auction on e-bay? By random selection?

In Response to zamphir (#14429):

This is because you did not specify in your original comments which set of authorities you were discussing.

Eh? We're discussing the assemblywoman's refusal to hold a public hearing regarding the ammendment... now, perhaps I'm confused, but I assume that's not something that just every assembly-person gets to say in Idaho.

So, how is it possible to "further the process" without "furthering their own political position"?

In this specific example? It seems the process calls for a public hearing regarding constitutional ammendments. Someone's been given the job of holding those hearings.

Apparently this person has some discretion as to whether to hold a hearing for a given ammendment. Actually, that's an assumption. I'm assuming that part of her job is to decide if a hearing shouldn't be held, e.g. for a redundent ammendment; it may actually be that her job is simply to hold the hearings, and that she knows if she doesn't do it then nobody can. But I digress...

To further the process: hold a hearing unless there is a compelling procedural reason not to.

To further your own political agenda: refuse to hold a hearing for political reasons.

I don't see the cause for confusion here. She has two jobs to do, and she's using the powers of one to achieve her goals in the other.

And how should this procedural role be staffed?

It should be staffed by assembly-persons who can distinguish between their procedural roles and their representative roles; that's theoretically how it's been working for a couple hundred years. If we've reached the point where our representatives can't handle that, then I guess it should be a hired administrative position with minimal discretionary authority.

In Response to zamphir (#14428):

Again, you're discussing motivations behind actions. Otherwise, you wouldn't be saying "do 'X' for 'Y'", you'd be saying "do 'X'".

The president has the authority to launch nuclear attacks. Certain things have to happen first. It's not about motivation; it's about cause. Likewise, a person in appointed authority can make certain decisions, but there has to be justification related to carrying out the duties of the appointed position; if there's not, the decision isn't legitimate. Again, not about motivation; about cause.

Somewhere I got the idea that you were among those who interpret the 2nd Ammendment (U.S. constitution) in terms of the need for a well-regulated militia; am I wrong about that? If not, doesn't that interpretation specify motivation rather than just action?

Many criminal charges have to do with "intent", which is just another spin on motivation.

But absent any specific information to the contrary, I believe we have to assume that the Chair in question is fully acting within the legal bounds of the position.

I haven't accused her of acting illegally. Not every legal action is right.

Given that motivations are so very very hard to prove, usually they are left out of rules, regulations, and procedures for conducting business.

Yes, but now you're arguing enforcability; I'm arguing ethics.

In Response to mea37 (#14427):

Interesting that you've shifted away from the issues and toward telling me what I do or don't know.

I believe I'm still discussing the issues. Your apparent ignorance of the scope of meaning behind the words "system" and "scrutiny" seems entirely relevant.

We probably both know the word for that.

"Generalising the dabate". But that's three words...

Your excuse of being unaware of issues local to me is irrelevant;

Wow. Obviously only those with a minutae understanding of Missouri state politics are allowed to join in this conversation...

if anything it means that you are ill-equipped to comment on what I've said.

Shall I start drawing my examples from UK politics, and require you to follow them? Or shall we carry on the conversation at a level of abstraction that allows us both to participate equally?

Defining the terms of the argument so as to automatically prevent one party from participating sounds like the last gasp of a man who is losing...

Similarly, the instance of fillibuster we're discussing is outside the system even if we stipulate that fillibuster as a concept is part of the system.

Bullshit. You have not provided any evidence that her actions were not entirely consistent with the powers granted to her within the system.

The power she exercised was granted legally, but (according to what's been said here about her motivation), she has exercised it in a manner inconsistent with the duties for which it was granted.

Bullshit. Her motivations are irrelevant. If she has the power to decide whether to hold a public hearing, and she has exercised that power, she has acted entirely legally and within the framework of the system. Your guesses about her motivation are irrelevant.

That would mean that the attourney general could choose when to press charges based on whatever criteria he might choose.

Bullshit. At least in Britain. The Attorney General in the UK is bound by thousands of rules, conditions, and constraints. I can't believe that's different in the US. If the Attorney General makes decisions that violate the law which governs his position, there is recourse against him. If his decisions are acceptable within the law, then he is free to act as he wishes, and will do so.

I'm unclear what end it is you think democracy serves.

A fair and just society...

If the case were strong and coherent, it should win out -- by way of convincing the majority that the case is correct. If it fails to do that, then it wasn't strong enough or coherent enough to win in a democracy.

Bullshit. Again, I can't comment on America, but in the UK we regularly have poll results that show that a majority of the population are homophobic, racist bigots who believe they should have the right to act as vigilantes. Is your society really that much more liberal? Can you guarantee it will remain that way? Any society based on majority rule to the exclusion of all else is wrong. The minority need to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. This is the essential realisation behind the US Constitution.

Gore was relentless in delaying the finalization of the official election results.

Bullshit. Gore relented, withdrawing his claims long before he legally needed to.

[Bush's] election underwent more scrutiny than any other American president

This I think is true. Which other President's election was still being discussed four years later, and will be used as a basis for bashing him over the head when he goes for re-election?

Cheers,
Graham

In Response to mea37 (#14434):

I haven't accused her of acting illegally. Not every legal action is right.

Actually, every legal action is right, if your standards of right and wrong are based entirely on the laws in effect.

Yes, but now you're arguing enforcability; I'm arguing ethics.
Sorry, Mike, that dog don't hunt.

To question her ethics is to question her motives. She is charged with doing her job as best as she sees fit, using her own best judgement. Nothing anyone has presented has shown that she is not doing so.

If you want to argue that she is not following her own system of ethics, you'll have to present real hard evidence of her own system of ethics, and where she has strayed from it.

If you want to argue that she is not following some other set of ethics than her own, then allow me to say what would be her only proper response "Fuck you". It's not your job to tell her what her ethics are. Sorry.

Somewhere I got the idea that you were among those who interpret the 2nd Ammendment (U.S. constitution) in terms of the need for a well-regulated militia; am I wrong about that? If not, doesn't that interpretation specify motivation rather than just action?

Oh, look. A straw man! What did someone else say about "last gasp"?

Many criminal charges have to do with "intent", which is just another spin on motivation.
Right. Intent, as shown by evidence and proven by that evidence within a reasonable doubt. Got any evidence you want to put forth, that we can argue about?

It's perfectly okay for you to think that the job of a committee Chair is to ensure that all business that is raised by the committee is dealt with in a timely and proper manner. But that ain't the whole of the job, unless Idaho does something different.

It's part of the job for the Chair to filter the agenda. And it's entirely ethical of her to do so, using her own best judgement and personal opinions as a filter criteria. Unless you can show something that indicates to a reasonable man that her intent in preventing any particular item from being acted on is anything other than that, you don't have an argument.

And we haven't even begun to bring up the question of overlapping mandates, and what is the proper way to resolve those.

In Response to mea37 (#14433):

Eh? We're discussing the assemblywoman's refusal to hold a public hearing regarding the ammendment... now, perhaps I'm confused, but I assume that's not something that just every assembly-person gets to say in Idaho.

Again, you're not being specific about which role you want to argue she is acting in. And it's a little late in the process to be introducing assumptions. If there were assumptions you were working on from the get go, and you didn't specify them, I'm under no obligation to argue within those constraints. And again, the fact that I'm not arguing within those constraints doesn't mean I'm confused about anything.

To further the process: hold a hearing unless there is a compelling procedural reason not to.
So, if a member of the Idaho committee proposes a constitutional amendment specifying that every person in Missouri has to wear a red shirt on Tuesdays, then it's her job to ensure that this amendment has a public hearing?

Without more evidence, it's very easy to make a case that she is preventing the hearing because, in her own best judgement, it is not the proper business of the committee - just like it is not the proper business of an Idaho committee to decide what y'all Missourians wear.

To further your own political agenda: refuse to hold a hearing for political reasons.
Again, there's that word "for". That's intent, or motivation.

Lacking evidence, as you do, "intent" is impossible to prove.

And again, you've failed to distinguish between "furthering the process" and "furthering your own political agenda". Particularly, you have failed to address my claim that, in an electoral system, "furthering the process" is always "furthering your own political agenda".

And changed your phrasing (and therefore meaning) as well, by using the word "agenda". Previously, you had said "purposes". But that's a straw man.

In Response to zamphir (#14448):

I like boobies.

Good on her!

In my opinion, that proposed constitutional change is unconstitutional (it's discriminatory) and unworthy of serious attention, and she was right in her actions.