fast_eddie_72 wrote:
What they are doing is opposing legislation proposed by the majority. They feel that it’s important enough to use an extreme provision of the law to prevent it from passing. But they’re using the law and they’re doing what they believe is in the interest of, and representing their constituents, which, is their job. It’s maybe more extreme, but along the same lines as the last Congress using the filibuster in the Senate to oppose legislation that had never even been discussed on the floor. That’s the law, and they can do it. If we want to change it, we have to change the law.
Right, this is not a filibuster (as suggested earlier), this is preventing a quarum. A filibuster is a small group of people continuing to talk (in theory, now they just say "we're filibustering" and don't need to work on it) in order to prevent a vote. A quarum is a minimum number of legislators who must be present in order to call a vote. This is also different because it requires almost all the Dems to coordinate in unison.
(Okay, and to try to report without weighing in on the issues...)
I don't know enough about what is going on in Indiana. As I understand the situation in Wisconsin, it's not a "right to work" issue. They are specifically looking to limit the collective bargaining rights of unions to allow them to only bargain for salaries, but not for things like benefits, retirement, or scheduling.
One big critique of that legislation is that it does not apply to all unions in the state. It has been written to not be applied to law enforcement or firefighters (but does apply to teachers). The accusation is that these are groups that supported the Repubs., and the unions that would be limited by the proposal are much more Liberal.
Please take what I've said with a grain of salt. That is just how I remember things from TV and Radio news. I'm not up for taking the time to link to more solid research.
