Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #1 
Tyler - I asked you why the Speaker allowed a vote on troop withdrawal from Iraq within 30 days last June.  You said, "I don't know".

Here's the bill...

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/house-defeats-bill-that-would-have-required-us-withdrawal-from-iraq-and-syria-within-30-days/

I ask you now why this isn't a violation of the Hastert rule?   Here are the most recent violations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule

What you fail to understand is the theme of the Hastert rule, (there is no actual rule in place), works in reverse as well.  The only reason you can't accept that fact is because Wikipedia only mentions bills being "supported" for passage and not bills being "targeted" for defeat.  Maybe I'll go in and edit Wikipedia.  In the meantime, please explain why this bill doesn't show up as a Hastert rule violation.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #2 
I did not.  The bill above had the "majority of the majority" against with the certainty it would not pass.  Therefore the theme of the Hastert rule was maintained. 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #3 
Uh oh, Tyler deleted his post.  What he said was I had it wrong in our other debate which I didn't.  If I was wrong, he could explain why this bill doesn't fall into the list of Hastert rule violations.  It isn't a violation because "the majority of the majority" works both ways.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #4 
To remind readers of our previous discussion, I said the Senate immigration bill never came to a House vote because, despite having a majority of the majority against, there was no certainty the bill would fail.  Therefore, in respect of the Hastert theme, the Speaker knew better than to bring it for a vote.  Tyler says it wasn't brought to a vote because there wasn't a majority in support, thus Hastert dictated the action.  Clearly, as my example above shows, bills do come to a vote without majority support and aren't considered violations of the Hastert rule.  That is, of course, assuming the Speaker knows they will fail.

As a side-note, Sen Cruz pretty much stated the gang of eight bill was on it's way to being passed in the House until he and others stepped up and stopped it.  That pretty much confirms what many thought, which was this bill would have passed if voted upon in the House.  This here was the original discussion which ultimately led to a debate on the Hastert rule.
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #5 
Dewey - I deleted my post because I wanted to give a more thoughtful response.

You were indeed wrong in my opinion. Quoting from another website: The Hastert Rule holds that the Speaker of the House shall bring no bill to a vote that does not have majority support among members of the majority. In other words, no bill could be brought to the floor for a vote unless a majority of House Republicans supported the bill." The rule was Hasterts way of minimizing the power of the minority.

Let's start with Deweys assertion that the rule works both ways, and if a majority of the majority oppose a bill, it should also be brought to a vote. In this scenario, a bill would simply need the support of 30 republicans and all 188 democrats to pass. Using you or logic, this bill would have met the Hastert Rule by having 216 GOP votes opposed to the bill. This is the exact opposite intent of the rule, as it allows the minority party to get a bill passed with a small minority of the majority party. I can't explain it any more simply than that.

Also, if the Hastert rule works when the majority of the majority supports a bill and when it opposes a bill, wouldn't that make every bill fall under the Hastert Rule? The majority of the majority always either supports or opposes a bill.

Pdad, care to jump in on this one? Something tells me you could swim laps around us on this.

Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerDurden
Let's start with Deweys assertion that the rule works both ways, and if a majority of the majority oppose a bill, it should also be brought to a vote.


No, that's not correct.  I'm not saying it should be brought to a vote.  I'm saying it can be brought to a vote if Speaker is certain it will fail, thus matching the position of the "majority of the majority".  If certain the majority of majority position holds, and the bill fails as they wish, then you've honored the Hastert rule.  If not certain, as was a Speaker who knew the Senate immigration bill would pass, then despite the fact a majority of the majority would be against the bill, a failure was not certain, and Hastert would demand  a no vote allowed.  If the Speaker knew the immigration bill would fail, he could continue with a vote without dishonoring the Hastert rule.  In other words, he would have the OK.

Edit:  Let me summarize.  If the Speaker was certain the immigration bill would fail, he had the majority of majority in that same position and he is free to hold a vote.  Haster honored.  If the Speaker thought the immigration bill would pass, this was contrary to the majority of the majority position and he should not hold a vote.  This latter sentence is precisely what happened.  It wasn't a non-vote because it lacked majority support.  We have those kind of votes already, albeit when failure is certain.
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #7 
Again, I can't find anything in regards to the Hastert Rule that says anything about the majority of the majority wanting a bill to fail. Everything I have found only says "supports". If you can find some links that back your claim, I would be happy to read them.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #8 
Tyler - I'll agree it is less common.  My only proof for you is to show you an example when a vote is allowed and the majority of the majority doesn't support it, then turn around and show you how it isn't included in the "hastert rule ignored" list of examples.  That is what I just did and is the reason I started this thread.
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #9 
Is that really your only evidence??

Also, using your logic, every bill would meet the Hastert Rule, thereby nullifying the need for the rule. Thoughts?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #10 
We're back to square one.  Let me try again.  Why would that withdrawal bill come to a vote when a majority of the majority was against it?  (Here is where you answered "I don't know.")  Here's my explanation.  If the withdrawal bill would have passed, Hastert would have been upset at the Speaker for violating the rule and allowing a vote.  It would have shown up as a Hastert rule ignored.  Knowing it would fail, Hastert has been honored, and the Speaker is safe.  In both instances, a majority of the majority didn't support a bill that was allowed to come to a vote but only one outcome is a violation of the rule while the other isn't.

Edit:  I fixed that last sentence.

Edit II:  IOW, the bill only came to a vote because the Speaker knew for certain the majority of the majority would match the outcome.
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #11 
Again, I see your point, but disagree. I have provided links describing the Hastert Rule, and every one talks about the majority of the majority supporting a bill, and nothing about opposing it. If a speaker knows a bill is going to fail and allows a vote, he is simply just allowing a bill to fail. The Hastert Rule does not apply from my research.

If you could find some articles or experts that back up your claim, I would be happy to read them. I briefly looked but could not find any.
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #12 
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/glossary/fl/The-Hastert-Rule.htm

Here is one that blames the Hastert Rule for holding up the vote on the 2013 immigration bill:

They also blame the Hastert Rule for spiking House action on any legislation passed in a bipartisan fashion in the U.S. Senate. The Hastert Rule was blamed, for example, for holding up House votes on the farm bill and immigration reform in 2013.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #13 
If the Speaker allowed a vote on the immigration bill, a bill the majority of majority was against, and it passed, he would be in violation of the Hastert rule.  You said this is why there was no vote.  You would be right if the Speaker knew it would pass.

If the Speaker allowed a vote on the immigration bill he knew wouldn't pass, a bill the majority of majority was against, he would not be in violation of the Hastert rule.  This is why I said if he knew it wouldn't pass, he had the OK to proceed with a vote.  No violation.


The Speaker was either certain the immigration bill would pass, or was too unsure of the outcome, so he chose not to vote.  (It's my opinion he knew it would pass as I think these guys count votes.)  If he were certain it wouldn't pass, as some here have tried to suggest, he could have allowed a vote and not violated the theme of Hastert.  That was my point to you several days ago when all this started.  He didn't go this route which convinces me he knew he had no choice but to not allow the vote.

Edit:  I had to fix paragraph two.




TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #14 
I'm sorry Dewey, but I can't find any articles explaining the Hastert Rule the way you describe it. If there are some out there, please post theme here. Until you are able to do that, it is simply a fact that the 2013 Immigration bill was not brought to the house floor because it did not have the support of the majority of the house republicans.

Edited to add: allowing a vote, it every article I have read, would have violated the central theme of Hastert and would therefore make the rule not necessary, as every bill the majority of the majority either supports or does not support. Your argument would make the rule you are trying to use meaningless.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #15 
The rule only requires logic.  It is not written anywhere other than the fact each time the right outcome for the majority of the majority results, it won't show up on a Wikipedia site pointing out Hastert rule violations.  When allowing a vote burns the majority of the majority, then you'll find it on Wikipedia.

I'll repeat my point once more and call it a night.  You told me the Speaker could not, or should not, allow a vote on the immigration bill, even though he knew it wouldn't pass and it had the majority of the majority voting against it, because it is a violation of the Hastert rule.  This simply isn't true and I've given examples where it has happened.  He's not violating the Hastert rule as long as it doesn't end up going against the majority of the majority.  It's only a violation if he allows such vote on a bill that ultimately passes and the majority of the majority are on the wrong side of the result.

Edit:  The Speaker didn't allow the vote on the immigration bill because he knew the majority of the majority would not end up on the same side as the vote result.
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #16 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
If the Speaker allowed a vote on the immigration bill, a bill the majority of majority was against, and it passed, he would be in violation of the Hastert rule.  You said this is why there was no vote.


You are misconstruing what I said. Simply allowing the vote would violate the Hastert Rule. It says nothing about the bill passing or not.

I think we have figured out where you are going off course. You are looking at the outcome, or potential outcome, of a vote when invoking the rule. The rule is very simple and says a bill should only be brought t a vote of the majority of the majority support it.
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #17 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
The rule only requires logic.  It is not written anywhere other than the fact each time the right outcome for the majority of the majority results, it won't show up on a Wikipedia site pointing out Hastert rule violations.  When allowing a vote burns the majority of the majority, then you'll find it on Wikipedia.

I'll repeat my point once more and call it a night.  You told me the Speaker could not, or should not, allow a vote on the immigration bill, even though he knew it wouldn't pass and it had the majority of the majority voting against it, because it is a violation of the Hastert rule.  This simply isn't true and I've given examples where it has happened.  He's not violating the Hastert rule as long as it doesn't end up going against the majority of the majority.  It's only a violation if he allows such vote on a bill that ultimately passes and the majority of the majority are on the wrong side of the result.

Edit:  The Speaker didn't allow the vote on the immigration bill because he knew the majority of the majority would not end up on the same side as the vote result.


Dewey, this is a classic case of you reading too much into something to try to make it fit what you said.

I will challenge you for the fourth time to post any articles pertaining to the Hastert Rule working in the way you describe. If you can do that, I would gladly read them and let you know my thoughts. Until then, it is a theory of yours and your personal reading of what he Hastert Rule is. It just happens to be in direct contrast of every legislative web-site I could find.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #18 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerDurden
You are misconstruing what I said. Simply allowing the vote would violate the Hastert Rule. It says nothing about the bill passing or not. 


I know that's what you're saying.  That's why I asked you to explain why my example in the first post doesn't show up on that Hastert violation list in Wikipedia?  Why do bills the Speaker allows to come to a vote and ultimately fail, bills the majority of majority are against, not show up on this Wikipedia list?  It's because they are not automatic violations of the rule as you are stating.  They are only violations if they ultimately burn the majority of the majority. 

I've given it my all.  Maybe somebody else can give a more clear explanation than I have.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,780
Reply with quote  #19 
"I've given it my all.  Maybe somebody else can give a more clear explanation than I have."

No, by all means, please continue

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #20 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerDurden
Dewey - it wouldn't take as much time if you would go in with an open mind and read things that are posted. Having some factual proof to back up what you say would also help when confronted with facts on the other side.


I had the proof but you refused to accept it.  I gave you a bill the Speaker allowed to come to a vote, a bill the majority of the majority were against, and it didn't show up in Wikipedia, or anywhere else for that matter, as an example of a bill going against the Hastert rule.  There's a reason you didn't find it there and that reason is because it isn't an example of a Hastert violation like your budget bill was.  I did my best to explain it to you but you have a right to refuse to accept my explanation.  That said, I don't want to do this again but I do have an open mind and I used it our exchange.

Edit:  I meant to say this one other way.  Allowing a bill to be voted upon, a bill the Speaker knows will fail, a bill his majority is against, has nothing to do with Hastert.  You won't find such a scenario mentioned in any definition of Hastert.  You are the one who says the Speaker couldn't vote for the immigration bill because of Hastert.  If he knows it won't pass, voting on it has nothing to do with the rule.  I said if he knew the bill wasn't going to pass, he could move forward because Hastert wasn't in play.  Maybe that will help.
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #21 
February 12, 2016:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Oh, I have a very good idea it would have passed.  The Speaker's refusal to put it up for a vote is all the evidence I needed to come to my conclusion.  It would have satisfied the Hastert rule yet he still refused to allow it to go forward.  Not difficult to form an idea as to why he made that decision.


On February 22, 2016:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey


Edit:  I meant to say this one other way.  Allowing a bill to be voted upon, a bill the Speaker knows will fail, a bill his majority is against, has nothing to do with Hastert.  You won't find such a scenario mentioned in any definition of Hastert.  You are the one who says the Speaker couldn't vote for the immigration bill because of Hastert.  If he knows it won't pass, voting on it has nothing to do with the rule.  I said if he knew the bill wasn't going to pass, he could move forward because Hastert wasn't in play.  Maybe that will help.


I'm a little confused by these statements, you on 2/12 you said the bill would have satisfied the Hastert Rule and yet he still wouldn't allow it to go forward.  Today you make the statement that if he knew it wasn't going to pass (as you claimed on 2/12), that Hastert wasn't in play.

Which is it?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #22 
By satisfying the rule I was saying the Speaker was not in violation of the Hastert rule and Hastert would not have been unsatisfied.  It's good you brought us back to the original debate we were having.  Why didn't the Speaker allow a vote on the Senate immigration bill?



1)  Some people, like me, think if a vote would have been allowed, the House would have passed the bill.  I said this over and over and used a non-vote to support my position.  If the Speaker allowed a vote and passed this bill, it would have been bad news for the GOP and it would have been a Hastert no no, just as you said.

2)  Some people think the bill would have failed in the House.  If so, the Speaker was free to allow a vote, crash and burn the bill for all to see, using his majority caucus, and Hastert would have absolutely no application in doing this.  I believe you think he can't do this because of some rule.


Once again, if you think the bill would have passed, then you were right to say Hastert didn't allow the Speaker to hold a vote.  If you think the bill would have failed, then you are wrong about the rule, it's not applicable, and the Speaker was free to allow a vote to defeat the bill.  Are we on the same page now?  I admit I may not always offer up a clear explanation which is why I gave it multiple efforts.
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #23 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
By satisfying the rule I was saying the Speaker was not in violation of the Hastert rule and Hastert would not have been unsatisfied.  It's good you brought us back to the original debate we were having.  Why didn't the Speaker allow a vote on the Senate immigration bill?



1)  Some people, like me, think if a vote would have been allowed, the House would have passed the bill.  I said this over and over and used a non-vote to support my position.  If the Speaker allowed a vote and passed this bill, it would have been bad news for the GOP and it would have been a Hastert no no, just as you said.

2)  Some people think the bill would have failed in the House.  If so, the Speaker was free to allow a vote, crash and burn the bill for all to see, using his majority caucus, and Hastert would have absolutely no application in doing this.  I believe you think he can't do this because of some rule.


Once again, if you think the bill would have passed, then you were right to say Hastert didn't allow the Speaker to hold a vote.  If you think the bill would have failed, then you are wrong about the rule, it's not applicable, and the Speaker was free to allow a vote to defeat the bill.  Are we on the same page now?  I admit I may not always offer up a clear explanation which is why I gave it multiple efforts.


Once again Dewey, you are thinking too macro and are trying to justify your position.  Don't think about passage or non-passage of the bill, the Hastert Rule does not mention that.  For the seventh time, if you can find a link where it does, I sincerely would like to read it, it might help me make sense of what you are saying.  You saying the rule would have been satisfied is simply not true.  You can try all the lengthy explanations you want, but they are simply not correct.  Please keep spinning and trying, but all the double negatives and talking in circles keep bringing us back to the original point, you were incorrect.

I have never said if I though the bill would pass or not, and I will stick by the claim that none of us know either.  It was obviously a gray area and one that Speaker Boehner, invoking the Hastert Rule, was correct to not bring to the floor of the House.  Saying the Hastert was satisfied and using that as justification to not bring it to the floor, is another incorrect statement. 

In closing, no further discussion is needed on this until you can provide some new information to the proceedings.  A link to an article that supports your claim would go a long way to helping the readers understand your position.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #24 
Tyler - I asked the UCS community why the Speaker didn't hold a vote on the Senate bill.  I'm using his non-vote as a basis for my argument the bill would have passed, (btw Sen. Cruz confirmed this in his town hall meeting the other day).  You answered the Speaker couldn't hold a vote because of Hastert.  This is wrong.  If a Speaker knows a bill will fail, he is free to use his majority caucus to crash and burn the bill.  Hastert has no bearing on this kind of a decision, (defeating a bill), which is why you'll never find it written down anywhere.  There is no link to be found.  You are asking me to prove the man didn't beat his wife.
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #25 
No, I'm simply asking you to prove that a majority of the majority opposing a bill satisfies that has to rule as you said it did. You cannot do that. This should be an easy task and one that I think you have tried to do, but have been unable to. That is why you have not provided a link.
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #26 
I'm out of this conversation. Until you can provide some proof, other than your own ramblings, but this bill satisfied the has to rule by the majority of the majority of opposing it, Then we have nothing else to talk about.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #27 
satisfy = does not violate

I have no doubt there are bills, which would go down in defeat, that a Speaker does not put up for a vote because his majority will show up on the wrong side.  He may be honoring the theme of Hastert when he makes this call.  However, there are other times he may try to pass a bill, fail, with the majority on the wrong side of the outcome.  Here, ignoring the majority of the majority may be less important than exposing the position of the opposition.  IOW, the fact the majority of the majority voted yes but didn't succeed is not always that important.  Whatever the ultimate goal, up or down, I promise you the Speaker pays close attention to the majority of the majority position.

Edit:

Suppose a controversial House bill is conceal and carry on airplanes.  Democrats are all against and Republicans favor bill 127-120.  Do you bring bill to a vote or table it?  It's certain to fail.

I'm rather certain a Speaker doesn't bring this bill to a vote.  I don't know if anyone will use the term Hastert, but I promise you the theme of the "majority of the majority" is being taken into consideration as are other things.  This is what I meant when I suggested the majority of the majority certainly works in different ways.




PDad

Registered:
Posts: 4,062
Reply with quote  #28 
Bottom line: None of us on here know whether the bill would have passed or not - period.

An unmentioned fact of why controlling parties do not allow votes on some bills is to protect some of their people that don't want their vote being recorded on the issue. This is particularly true on bills the controlling party doesn't want to pass.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #29 
I think Senator Cruz confirmed it was on it's way to passage and, thanks to he and a couple of others, they stopped it in its tracks.  At least that's what he said in his town hall.
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 4,062
Reply with quote  #30 
Cruz didn't specify what stopped it - a majority of GOP Reps against it or just too toxic to come up for a vote. 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.