LogFAQs > #949458770

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, Database 7 ( 07.18.2020-02.18.2021 ), DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Politics Containment Topic 358: Funeral Parler
xp1337 01/13/21 1:56:59 PM #286:	Jakyl25 posted... I have it on now and theyre going back and forth A minute to this guy, two minutes to that guy, two minutes to this woman, a minute to that guy Its all just grandstanding. I dont understand it under any other framework I've been reading the floor procedure on the House website and as far as I can tell, the floor debate is mandatory (unless everyone unanimously surrenders their time and even that is a supposition on my part) The whole "a minute to this eprson, two to that" is just parliamentary stuff that is part of the usual conduct of Congress. Prior to this debate, they vote on the framework the debate proceeds by - chiefly the time allowed to debate and whether amendments can be considered (and if so, are there limitations on what kind of amendments.) In this case, they set the time of debate to 2 hours (I don't believe they can zero it out which seems to be your issue here) Whatever amount of time they choose to allot to debate is then equally divided between the major parties and one member from each party is designated as a Floor Manager and runs the show for their party. Here it's Nadler for the Dems and Jordan for the GOP. They are the ones who control their time and so everything runs through them - parliamentarily speaking, if anyone else wants to talk they need the Floor Manager to yield the time to them so this stuff is usually discussed/decided on beforehand. By custom they generally go back and forth in roughly equal time amounts to keep the time remaining equal, but occasionally it gets a bit unbalanced and one side might speak several times in a row. I recall in Impeachment 1.0 that every now and then a Floor Manager would ask the Chair for a clock check to know how much time was left on each side and I think Schiff (the Manager back then) was "reserving" time consecutively (basically passing it back to the GOP to to let the GOP talk a few times in a row to let them expire their time) so he could give a closing speech. If you're asking "well, hypothetically, couldn't the GOP time be given to someone like Liz Cheney who supports impeachment and then have her go 'Nah, we're good, I yield the full balance of our time back'": First, I'm not sure that's even possible, but secondly even if it were, reading the procedure here it notes under more routine, uncontroversial stuff that if an opposition member who would normally be in charge of time doesn't oppose the matter, they can be challenged for their time for someone who does. So again, barring unanimous consent to dispense with debate I don't think you can skip this. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:949458770] in Politics C... [t:79233041]...</cite> <quote>Jakyl25 posted... </cite> <quote>I have it on now and theyre going back and forth A minute to this guy, two minutes to that guy, two minutes to this woman, a minute to that guy Its all just grandstanding. I dont understand it under any other framework</quote>I've been reading the floor procedure on the House website and as far as I can tell, the floor debate is mandatory (unless everyone unanimously surrenders their time and even that is a supposition on my part) The whole "a minute to this eprson, two to that" is just parliamentary stuff that is part of the usual conduct of Congress. Prior to this debate, they vote on the framework the debate proceeds by - chiefly the time allowed to debate and whether amendments can be considered (and if so, are there limitations on what kind of amendments.) In this case, they set the time of debate to 2 hours (I don't believe they can zero it out which seems to be your issue here) Whatever amount of time they choose to allot to debate is then equally divided between the major parties and one member from each party is designated as a Floor Manager and runs the show for their party. Here it's Nadler for the Dems and Jordan for the GOP. They are the ones who control their time and so everything runs through them - parliamentarily speaking, if anyone else wants to talk they need the Floor Manager to yield the time to them so this stuff is usually discussed/decided on beforehand. By custom they generally go back and forth in roughly equal time amounts to keep the time remaining equal, but occasionally it gets a bit unbalanced and one side might speak several times in a row. I recall in Impeachment 1.0 that every now and then a Floor Manager would ask the Chair for a clock check to know how much time was left on each side and I think Schiff (the Manager back then) was "reserving" time consecutively (basically passing it back to the GOP to to let the GOP talk a few times in a row to let them expire their time) so he could give a closing speech. If you're asking "well, hypothetically, couldn't the GOP time be given to someone like Liz Cheney who supports impeachment and then have her go 'Nah, we're good, I yield the full balance of our time back'": First, I'm not sure that's even possible, but secondly even if it were, reading the procedure here it notes under more routine, uncontroversial stuff that if an opposition member who would normally be in charge of time doesn't oppose the matter, they can be challenged for their time for someone who does. So again, barring unanimous consent to dispense with debate I don't think you can skip this. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1