To provide a quick overview, what this articles talks about is how a provision is being put into the conference version of a budget bill. The provision is funding related, but unrelated to budget at all. It was included in the House version, but not included in the Senate version. The only two "compromise" positions are including it or not including it.
As this budget bill essentially must pass when it is brought before both houses of congress, anything in it except the most absolutely outrageous is pretty much guaranteed to become law. Not to mention that conference bills have severely restricted debate, anyways. Republicans who might have a problem with this measure won't vote no on the bill. Democrats prolly won't vote no either, because it would give the republicans election year ammunition.
This isnt' language that was rejected by the Senate, either, this measure was never brought up in the Senate, which allows the republicans who control the conference committee to include it without visibly countering the will of the majority. The thing is, this has been a repeated tactic used (due to democrats with a few republican allies defeating particularly partisan measures in the senate) -- only bring something up in the house, add it in conference, then get it passed with the limited debate rules and inability to amend guaranteed by it being a conference bill.
This is as bad or worse than "activist judges", as it constitutes not merely pushing the limits of a branches authority (which is how that authority is shaped, anyways), but manipulating the legislative process to suppress opposition.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, the conference commitees are becoming convenient back-doors for changing legislation, often for the benefit of special interests (sometimes just one company.) The abuse of conference commitees will get worse before it gets better, if it ever gets better. It allows congressmen to modify legislation without a paper trail.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
But nothing that passes conference is enacted without a majority vote of both houses (assuming it's changed from each house's version). So it's only supression of the will of the majority of the house IF the majority of the house consents to it.
posted
Sort of, Dag, sort of. Its suppression of the will of the majority with regards to that particular measure, but not to the bill as a whole. Not everybody is satistified with every part of the bill.
In particular, tagging controversial measures to bills which must pass or stall the country and significantly reduce the hopes of re-election of anyone who votes against it is pretty much de facto suppression of the will of the majority, as the bill as a while has near infinite approval due to that aspect of it, and no particular measure unless it calls for mass executions or somesuch is going to result in its not passing.
However, I was quite careful in my choice of wording at the end, there -- it suppresses opposition, which is exactly the opposite of what our legislative process was intended for, whether that opposition is in the majority or not. It suppresses the oppositions ability to even attempt a meaningful case against the bill.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said, I don't like it. But in this case it is possible for the majority to take a stand.
Overcoming a lot of court decisions requires 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states, so I don't see the conference shenanigans being anywhere near as bad as judicial overreaching.
posted
No, it requires something much easier in most cases -- a court with higher authority, or the same court, deciding otherwise.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except for when it's the highest court - there are 52 courts that can make final decisions in this country, and they do constantly. They seldom overrule themselves.
posted
Also, that would only be judicial shenanigans by the supreme court (that would require such an extreme approach to change them), a rather rarified crowd. By far most the accusations of judicial shenanigans are leveled at lower courts.
edit: you are right, there's more than just the supreme court. But those decisions by the state courts only require the state to amend their constitution, it would seem, at least for decisions that can't be appealed to the supreme court.
btw, who's number 52? Lets see . . . state supreme courts, supreme court, I'm missing one . . .
posted
Overruling a conference commitee negotiated law is very rare (almost unheard of?), even when crap is added that wouldn't have passed by a majority in both houses if honestly put up for a vote by itself. That's why it's a manipulation of the process, and why power brokers and lobbyists love using it for shenannigans.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, my assessment that its worse than "judicial activism" doesn't rest on which is worse to overturn, but on whether or not its an acceptable part of the system. In the US, "judicial activism" is a fundamental and entrenched part of our judicial process. It is public, it is publicized, and it is undertaken by the highest courts with caution and much deliberation, because the impact can be so large.
Laws-by-conference is not an accepted part of the system, its a shenanigan that is suppressed most of the time by the numbers, it is private, it is hidden, and it is undertaken by people who desire to abandon caution and deliberate consideration.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And it is IMMEDIATELY stoppable by a simple majority of either house of Congress. If a majority stood up to it once or twice, the whole issue would go away for a while. The simple fact is that a majority of people with direct power to prevent this from happening have instead consented to the process.
Conference amendments ARE part of the system; they just happen to be a part of the system you dislike.
posted
DC has the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (DCCA). It has the final judicial say on interpreting the laws of the District, same as a state supreme court does.
quote:Laws-by-conference is not an accepted part of the system, its a shenanigan that is suppressed most of the time by the numbers, it is private, it is hidden, and it is undertaken by people who desire to abandon caution and deliberate consideration.
Not sure I understand this statement...this is actually a common part of the system, since bills have to pass through committee before they make it to the floor. It is just how things are.
Also, while yes, the final appropriations bill must pass before they go home for the year...they almost never (in recent years) accept things early...they always seem to drag it out. If they don't want that provision to pass, they will vote against it, regardless of the fact that the final bill must be passed before they go home.
quote:From the article: The abortion language would bar federal, state and local agencies from withholding taxpayer money from health care providers that refuse to provide or pay for abortions or refuse to offer abortion counseling or referrals.
The bill does not ban abortions, or anything like that...it simply says that health care providers should not be required to perform them. I don't see anything wrong with this at all. I am fairly certain that hospitals can refuse any elective procedures, so why should abortion be any different?
quote:from the article: The alternative is to let government funding for a wide array of agencies - like the F.B.I., the National Park Service and the Environmental Protection Agency - run out, in effect causing a partial government shutdown.
I was talking to a lawyer who worked with a lobying group up in DC and she said that this was not exactly true. In recent years they have started allowing groups whos funding has not been renewed (due to the congresses innability to pass things they are supposed to pass) to continue on, however their funding would stay level (without any increases for new programs or hiringing). It is a pain in the neck, and leads to other complications but it can be done. It won't cause the end of the world if it drags out for another month. Though it might lead to some annoyed spouses when there husbands/wives don't come home in time for Christmas because they can't get a bill passed.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a major difference between reconciliation of differences in the subject matter of the bill through conferences, which I approve of, and adding unrelated stuff to bills which one side had no chance to debate on. I'm okay with conferences on the whole, it is this particular usage of them that I disapprove of. This particular usage is not an accepted or common part of our political system, it is only lately that it has become systematic (and usage was very rare beforehand).
posted
But the point remains it could be stopped very easily if a majority wanted to, and it is entirely consistent with the Constitution and with the rules of each House. It could even be fillibustered. So it's not a usurpation of power from anyone.
posted
I like political checks. If this were to sink someone's career, then it's clear the political check is functioning. Maybe not as you wish, but as the system is designed to do - by punishing legislators who behave in an unpopular fashion.
posted
Your counterargument is like me saying judicial activism could be stopped very easily in the courts just by persuading one measly person for each decision (since the majorities are often by one in such decisions). Its ignoring the realities of the situation.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But this is forcing their actions to be unpopular when they wouldn't necessarily were business conducted in the normal manner; its chicanery, not day to day business.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'm not. There's lots of things I don't like about the way Congress operates. I put conference amendments in the same category as fillibusters - annoyance, but the rules the legislators have chosen to operate under. It's not granting the body as a whole any power that it shouldn't or doesn't have.
posted
To quote a Mr. Thomas: "I think judicial activism is when you disagree with what the court did."
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
