SR 107-04: Anti-Filibuster Senate Rules Change (Rejected)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I just love walking into firestorms, which is in part why it ended up being seven days instead of say five. Expectations of unneeded stress factors.

I am just rather amazed that we can go from having dead Senates to one that is so active little known provision is enough to provoke a crisis that needs to be changed.

We have spent years pining for engaged debates and discussions and then in the space of days, suddenly, "filibustering is a crisis in Atlasia".

It kind of gets back to the budget process issue of restricting the debate period of budgets, wouldn't you want to at least see the debate sustained before we start entertaining ideas of curtailing the debate?

As for processing of motions, generally speaking they go in order with perhaps the one exception being something like a cloture motion as that would conceivably make sense to function as an interrupt. I guess I agree with Cao and Sestak to a point though.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think the PPT should be as impartial as possible, and while I understand the concerns about abuse here in terms of delaying things, I worry more about the slide this could manifest going forward in terms of who the PPT caters to and thus becomes less of an impartial administration as a result.

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Pericles pretty much killed the gun bill. He wasn't trying to make it better. We know this. However, I think a rules change for that alone might set a bad precedent. Additionally, I have an issue with a PPT acting this way. If the PPT was Yankee for life, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Maybe we should add something that allows the senate to block a PPT's unjust blocking of amendments that's stronger than a simple objection



Nay btw

When they created the office of President IRL, they created it in the image of George Washington who was presiding over the convention, but they also knew that George Washington would not be around forever.

You have to set the standards that will hold up down the line. It is the same point I made during the whole January 6th debacle and it is the angle that was unfortunately lost in the usual RL political bs. That of do you really want the President to potentially see as an option sending a mob or the Army to force Congress to bend to will and how do you want that scenario to be perceived by future Presidents regardless of political orientation, but possessing a lust for executive authority.

I am not here to say that WD will be the PPT that breaks the Senate, but what matters is how does the process work down the line.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay ftr