Immediate Consideration

David Shafer has his thoughts up. Here’s an excerpt:

Apparently believing the committee referrals to be an attempt to avoid taking action on the vetoes, the Speaker today suggested that the Senate shirked its constitutional duty in not immediately subjecting the vetoed bills to an up-or-down vote. But the word “consider” literally means “to think about carefully.” Referral to committee is an appropriate response, and I fully expect the committee process to work.

Senator Don Balfour, Chairman of the Rules Committee, has indicated that hearings could begin as early as later this week.

Technorati Tags: House v. Senate Pissing Match

6 comments

  1. Bill Simon says:

    As much respect as I have personally for Senator David Shafer, the state senate’s position on this matter is indefensible. Want to know why?

    Because by parsing the word “consider” out to be a process requiring the legislative body to think about something “carefully” is to directly imply that they did not consider these bills carefully LAST YEAR.

    That’s what it means. Don’t give me this parsing-out bullsh*t of the definition of the word “consider.”

    If you’re going to now admit that these bills need to be “considered” again, then that tells me and anyone else who has a modicum of commonsense that you wasted our taxpayer dollars in last year’s session when you took these bills through your Rules Committee and voted them out to the floor…and then passed each of these bills by a HUGE margin.

    Senator(s), quit posturing and wasting our taxpayer dollars on figuring out how many ways you can wrap yourself into a pretzel around the definiton of the word “consider.”

    Any more time spent on re-considering these bills demonstrates to me that you are doing nothing but political posturing.

  2. Chris says:

    I agree with the Senate’s efforts to be more deliberative.

    However, I think the Senate Rules committee needs to immediately consider these vetoes and send back their recommendations to the Senate for an immediate up-or-down vote.

    Bill: They did consider these bills last session, however the Governor did give reasons for his vetoes and I believe those reasons are what the Senate is considering.

  3. Bill Simon says:

    Sorry, Chris…I was led to believe the Senate was all-knowing on every single bill they passed. The leadership they have (e.g., Johnson and Balfour) certainly made it clear over the years that THEY know everything and anyone who challenges anything coming out of their chamber is an “activist-something” or another.

  4. modcon says:

    They’ve told the media they are considering the bills. Isn’t that the same thing as actually considering them?

  5. Inside_Man says:

    Who wants to place bets as to whether or not these VO’s get a vote in Senate Rules. My prediction is the invention of a new parliamentary procedure. I’ll call it the “pocket re-veto” or the “pocket veto override override.” If they hold those motions in Senate Rules without an up or down vote until the term ends, they will have invented something that certainly ain’t in the Constitution.

Comments are closed.