Colorado Republicans, Upset with Democrats in Power, Try Reading 2K Page Bill

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/alex_burness/sta...52330977095680

It's in a Twitter thread but it's worth a read. Sounds like Democrats in the Colorado Senate, who took power last elections, are trying to fast-track a whole lot of legislation. I'm not sure if there's more context surrounding this and I'm sure there is, but Republicans attempted to delay scheduled votes by reading the entire 2,023 page "non-controversial clean-up bill" in its entirety. Which is allowed by the Colorado Constitution.

It would have taken upwards of a week or more, and after protesting against Democrats who wanted to have bots read it (as there's no requirement that it be a human) Republicans bristled that it violated the "spirit" of the law.

In the end it took 5 robots 4 hours at 650 words per minute to read the full thing, and that's on top of 3 hours of reading by a human prior.

State-level Republican obstructionism seems to still be going strong following all the power-grabs from Republican legislatures trying to gut the authority of the Governor's office before Democrats took over.

[GreenJesus]

So... what's in the bill? Define "non-controversial cleanup bill". What is the time process here? Did they just whip up some bills really fast and wanted to vote on it without having any dialogue or debate? I don't really know what the full story is.

[Powerogue]

Orrrr, we could go back to making legal documents not be 2000 pages of fluff long?

I really wish we could just do that. It would benefit everyone except for the people abusing that fact to inject unrelated things into the bills. It's not like it's hard to be a bit more brief, the Constitution + amendments is only a few pages.

[Adam Jensen]

So... what's in the bill? Define "non-controversial cleanup bill". What is the time process here? Did they just whip up some bills really fast and wanted to vote on it without having any dialogue or debate? I don't really know what the full story is.

Who cares about the bill.

If Republicans (or Democrats for that matter) are so damned interested in stopping a bill, argue it's fucking merits, rather than wasting everyone's time with stupid obstructionism, which is the whole point of this thread.

The bill isn't the point.

We as a country really need to rethink the filibuster.

- - - Updated - - -

Orrrr, we could go back to making legal documents not be 2000 pages of fluff long?

I really wish we could just do that. It would benefit everyone except for the people abusing that fact to inject unrelated things into the bills. It's not like it's hard to be a bit more brief, the Constitution + amendments is only a few pages.

Also this. Why is a bill ever longer than Game of Thrones or the Lord of the Rings?

[Trifle]

Also this. Why is a bill ever longer than Game of Thrones or the Lord of the Rings?

Basically because they're full of very specific language so that they (hopefully) can't be reinterpreted later on to mean something different.

[Fugus]

Basically because they're full of very specific language so that they (hopefully) can't be reinterpreted later on to mean something different.

Pretty much this.

Imagine trying to give orders to a pretty greedy child who will look at any way he can to get around your orders to get what he wants.

Then what starts out to be, "Don't open the cookies" turns into,

"Don't open the cookies, don't ask anyone else to open the cookies, don't let anything touch the cookies that could end up opening them, if the cookies end up being opened by some means I have not thought of, you can not have them. If someone else opens the cookies, you can not ask them for some, You can not accept the cookies if given to you from some other than me." etc....


You see how something similar can happen here where they have to think of so many other methods to get around the stuff. Especially when they get get an activist judge from fishing the courts to try and reinterpret something later if they don't make it exact enough or they get something else struck down later so that the rest doesn't collapse around it.

[PosPosPos]

Basically because they're full of very specific language so that they (hopefully) can't be reinterpreted later on to mean something different.

Pretty much this.

Except the problem outlined in this thread and the attached article is clearly way past the point of standard "cover-all" legalese - and firmly into the realm of "we are going to dump meaningless word salad at you at the last minute and it just so happens that unless you can finish reading this we can't hold an election properly".

[Fugus]

Except the problem outlined in this thread and the attached article is clearly way past the point of standard "cover-all" legalese - and firmly into the realm of "we are going to dump meaningless word salad at you at the last minute and it just so happens that unless you can finish reading this we can't hold an election properly".

I understand that, the Republicans are trying to use the size of the bill as a weapon to keep from voting on it. Was just pointing out that it has to be so big because many of the Republicans and their supporters will exploit any vagaries in it as they can let alone what judges can do if they try and gut it.

[PosPosPos]

I understand that, the Republicans are trying to use the size of the bill as a weapon to keep from voting on it. Was just pointing out that it has to be so big because many of the Republicans and their supporters will exploit any vagaries in it as they can let alone what judges can do if they try and gut it.

I am pretty sure most of everyone who has stepped into society long enough know the necessary evil of overly-comprehensive wording.

I am also pretty sure @Adam Jensen was also illustrating a scenario where it goes far past that point rather than questioning why overly-comprehensive phrasing exists as a concept and in practice.

[kail]

I can't find an issue with legislators reading a bill. The fact that it's so long is the core issue. Of all the filibuster attempts, this is the most viable.

[Wermys]

I think its this bill that is being referenced. https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb19-1172

[PACOX]

No harms no foul really. We all know Republican representatives can't read.

[Flarelaine]

I think its this bill that is being referenced. https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb19-1172

Oh, it's recodification. That does actually explain the length - it is not a single bill, but a wording cleanup on several.

[Machismo]

I think every government entity should allow a proper amount of time to read any bill they put forth. If they want to put up 2000 pages worth of bills, then they need to allow enough time for a politician to actually read those 2000 pages. If I were ever in office, I would never vote for anything that I didn't know exactly what was in it.

[Kathandira]

https://twitter.com/alex_burness/sta...52330977095680

It's in a Twitter thread but it's worth a read. Sounds like Democrats in the Colorado Senate, who took power last elections, are trying to fast-track a whole lot of legislation. I'm not sure if there's more context surrounding this and I'm sure there is, but Republicans attempted to delay scheduled votes by reading the entire 2,023 page "non-controversial clean-up bill" in its entirety. Which is allowed by the Colorado Constitution.

It would have taken upwards of a week or more, and after protesting against Democrats who wanted to have bots read it (as there's no requirement that it be a human) Republicans bristled that it violated the "spirit" of the law.

In the end it took 5 robots 4 hours at 650 words per minute to read the full thing, and that's on top of 3 hours of reading by a human prior.

State-level Republican obstructionism seems to still be going strong following all the power-grabs from Republican legislatures trying to gut the authority of the Governor's office before Democrats took over.

I personally don't feel wanting to read the entire bill being an attempt at obstruction. They should read the whole thing so they have a chance to challenge it, or work together in attempt to find a compromise on anything that the republican side doesn't agree with.

- - - Updated - - -

Who cares about the bill.

If Republicans (or Democrats for that matter) are so damned interested in stopping a bill, argue it's fucking merits, rather than wasting everyone's time with stupid obstructionism, which is the whole point of this thread.

How do you argue something you haven't read?

Wait a minute...this is mmo-champion where that happens daily...never mind.

[Trifle]

I am pretty sure most of everyone who has stepped into society long enough know the necessary evil of overly-comprehensive wording.

I am also pretty sure @Adam Jensen was also illustrating a scenario where it goes far past that point rather than questioning why overly-comprehensive phrasing exists as a concept and in practice.

How big do you think a bill is allowed to be before it's "too many pages" ? Once it gets to that size, do you want them to split it up and make it 2 bills instead of 1? Would that accomplish anything ?

It's pointless to focus on the size without even knowing what's in it, and how much ground it covers.

[Adam Jensen]

How do you argue something you haven't read?

Wait a minute...this is mmo-champion where that happens daily...never mind.

That's not my point.

The argument in this thread is about the Republicans reading the bill as an act of obstruction. My point was against reading the bill as an act of fillibuster and as an argument for or against filibustering, the contents of the bill are irrelevant.

Obviously the bill should be read before a vote so people can argue it and its merits, but it should not be done to block a vote.

I probably just didn't word it clearly.

[Kathandira]

That's not my point.

The argument in this thread is about the Republicans reading the bill as an act of obstruction. My point was against reading the bill as an act of fillibuster and as an argument for or against filibustering, the contents of the bill are irrelevant.

Obviously the bill should be read before a vote so people can argue it and its merits, but it should not be done to block a vote.

I probably just didn't word it clearly.

That makes perfect sense.

Just to put it out there, my "snarky" comment was to be read with humor.

[lockedout]

https://twitter.com/alex_burness/sta...52330977095680

It's in a Twitter thread but it's worth a read. Sounds like Democrats in the Colorado Senate, who took power last elections, are trying to fast-track a whole lot of legislation. I'm not sure if there's more context surrounding this and I'm sure there is, but Republicans attempted to delay scheduled votes by reading the entire 2,023 page "non-controversial clean-up bill" in its entirety. Which is allowed by the Colorado Constitution.

It would have taken upwards of a week or more, and after protesting against Democrats who wanted to have bots read it (as there's no requirement that it be a human) Republicans bristled that it violated the "spirit" of the law.

In the end it took 5 robots 4 hours at 650 words per minute to read the full thing, and that's on top of 3 hours of reading by a human prior.

State-level Republican obstructionism seems to still be going strong following all the power-grabs from Republican legislatures trying to gut the authority of the Governor's office before Democrats took over.

So you're against people actually reading a bill before passing it?

[Fugus]

I think every government entity should allow a proper amount of time to read any bill they put forth. If they want to put up 2000 pages worth of bills, then they need to allow enough time for a politician to actually read those 2000 pages. If I were ever in office, I would never vote for anything that I didn't know exactly what was in it.

Agreed, they should be given time to read each bill with a queue so that enough time is given to read every bill as to prevent them being flooded to the point they can't read them. To be honest, politicians should be barred on voting for a bill they haven't read.

The problem is that these people aren't doing that, they aren't even listening to the bill that is being read for them, they are doing it just to delay which is a problem.