I’m old enough to remember WD coming down hard on other Senators trying to clog the queue with cosmetic amendments.
(And strangely enough, I actually like one of these amendments! But the other two are the literal definition of frivolous that he used the last time he was PPT and posting these all at once is a pretty clear sign that not all of them, at minimum, are made in good faith without intent to gum up Senate proceedings.)
Well, that isn’t really my intention. I suppose you can make the case for the first, but I don’t know how you can argue that substantive changes to the bill, as #2 and #3 make, are frivolous.
Nonetheless I leave my amendments as is for the Senate to take a look at and vote on. More voting and debate is a good thing, folks.
Wait, I’m interested in hearing this.
How exactly is #3 a substantive change?
