OSPR Amendment #97495 [debating]

[Junkie]

I kind of go back and forth on it.  Yes, one Senator doing a motion to table can be annoying and slow down a bill.  One can argue it our version of the filibuster.  While that tactic was shamefully used in the era of civil rights and today, it was also used by Huey Long to champion the poor and Bernie Sanders to protest tax cuts.

I value parlimentary rules that allow for a lone principled dissenter to raise attention to his cause and fight to the very end.  It may be annoying, and it may be used against bills I care about, but I have to say it is important to me.

After all that, I think I will not support this amendment.

[Junkie]

Okay guys, we've just had three motions to table introduced in under 16 hours... passing this would definitely be a good idea.

I don't see this as a bad idea.

[Junkie]

Im with Junkie.

I bet that statement probably suprised some people.  Thank you for the support.  We need to preserve the right of "lone dissent."

[Junkie]

If an idea  is bad enough to be worth tabling, finding a Senator to second the motion should be trivial. Lone dissent isn't being stopped; vote nay to your heart's content. But don't muck up Senate business by flinging out motions to table legislation for no other reason than you dislike it like a machine gun.

Two things.  I totally agree that motions to table should not be used just because you have a personality disagreement.  That being said, I do not agree that getting a second will be that easy.  What if there will a bill that I fundamentally thought was wrong, but the rest of the Senate just did not care or disagreed with me.  By being able to slow down the debate by a motion to table I take a stand.  We don't have the filibuster.  Sometimes voting nay is just not enough.

[Junkie]

Nay

[Junkie]

I was thinking, that in order to truly protest the end of the lone dissent, I should have made a motion to table this.  Would have been interesting.