Speaker Race Underway; Aex And Noto Weigh Their Chances

[hyanygo]

I'm old enough to not really care about the "work I've put in".

The key for me is all about working to strengths. I would argue that this Senate on its own is too lopsided one way. I agree with you that you need a diversity but I don't know if this Senate is diverse enough on its own. This is what I mean by the marshalling of intellectual support. You will necessarily need more viewpoints and experiences than this Senate can bring to bear. On issues such as security, the world assembly, citizen applications, etc you will need outside support. The collective experience of this Senate is small and it will wait too long for the support and free timetables of those that do have experience. I am unfortunately pessimistic in this. Perhaps I am jaded by a previous term which spent an age on spelling mistakes. I am perhaps also a little tired of a previous previous Senate accidentally getting locked up by bills that ought to be have been timetabled for late in the session.

I think we'd do well with more powers to the Speaker to push bills down and not wait for the slow process of tabling. I am at the stage in my thinking that I would rather minor bills be timetabled for a set time and then put in the bin if there is no resolution on the next productive step. I say this because I don't want a list of half-finished eating away at the next marginal hour of our volunteer senators. I think I am in the minority here though.

 

[hyanygo]

On Mal's idea I think that the AG probably is the best person to turn to. If the President has picked well then the AG is likely the person outside the court that has the inclination and time to provide non-binding support. A general counsel on the other hand would probably be second best. I would have taken on the charge of supporting the Senate as I don't believe my executive interests run counter to that of the Senate. However, more recent AGs might have a different view on how they have percieved their political role.

 

[Kazaman]

I think we'd do well with more powers to the Speaker to push bills down and not wait for the slow process of tabling. I am at the stage in my thinking that I would rather minor bills be timetabled for a set time and then put in the bin if there is no resolution on the next productive step. I say this because I don't want a list of half-finished eating away at the next marginal hour of our volunteer senators. I think I am in the minority here though.

My view is similar. The procedure for readings in particular seems too slow and rigid for me. I prefer a more flexible system where, for instance, a motion for a second reading can be carried at any point with sufficient support. The exact nature of the support needed is a detail that would need hammering out, but as a sketch I think this is more reasonable and malleable than the current system.

 

[Moronist Decisions]

On Mal's idea I think that the AG probably is the best person to turn to. If the President has picked well then the AG is likely the person outside the court that has the inclination and time to provide non-binding support. A general counsel on the other hand would probably be second best. I would have taken on the charge of supporting the Senate as I don't believe my executive interests run counter to that of the Senate. However, more recent AGs might have a different view on how they have percieved their political role.

Speaking for myself only during my last tenure, while I would have provided legal advice if asked and have used the CA on occasion to comment on this. However, there are two concerns:

• Where the interest of the Executive runs counter to that of the legislature (uncommon, but possible).
• While I understand your reading of the Ministerial Speech Amendment (2014), i.e. ESPA s3c, is quite possibly different from mine, the AG is (in my view) hampered because he does not have speaking rights on the Senate floor.

 

[Malashaan]

I don't think the permissions would be a big obstacle. Generally, I think it would be good for whomever is counseling the Senate to do that separately from the Senate floor anyway (e.g., in the Speaker's Office, or even in private). Furthermore, if detailed discussion of a legal question was required on the Senate floor, counsel can always be invited to speak on the matter. Such a limitation would help enforce a delineation between substantive discussion of legislation, which should be left to the Senators, and legal questions, on which counsel should speak.

I think the AG is an option, but separate counsel would be better. First, as MD noted, the Senate and Executive may have different interests. Second, having a separate legal opinion in the Senate to the one that is ultimately provided to the President if the legislation passes is more likely to result in problems being caught.

 

[Aexnidaral]

Another interesting option, in my opinion, would be to give the General Counsel access to the Preliminary Chamber as well, to give Senators and the Counsel the ability to semi-publicly interact as a group for things that would be more pertinent to multiple members rather than clogging the Senate floor for non-relevant questions not about legislation on the floor, etc.

 

[Kazaman]

Another interesting option, in my opinion, would be to give the General Counsel access to the Preliminary Chamber as well, to give Senators and the Counsel the ability to semi-publicly interact as a group for things that would be more pertinent to multiple members rather than clogging the Senate floor for non-relevant questions not about legislation on the floor, etc.

I don't see how questions on the floor about items on the floor could be irrelevant, but I do like the idea of the counsel accessing the preliminary chambers.

 

[Aexnidaral]

Another interesting option, in my opinion, would be to give the General Counsel access to the Preliminary Chamber as well, to give Senators and the Counsel the ability to semi-publicly interact as a group for things that would be more pertinent to multiple members rather than clogging the Senate floor for non-relevant questions not about legislation on the floor, etc.

I don't see how questions on the floor about items on the floor could be irrelevant, but I do like the idea of the counsel accessing the preliminary chambers.

That's the opposite of what I said, I think you misread. I was saying in the case of questions that weren't relevant to items on the floor.

 

[Kazaman]

Another interesting option, in my opinion, would be to give the General Counsel access to the Preliminary Chamber as well, to give Senators and the Counsel the ability to semi-publicly interact as a group for things that would be more pertinent to multiple members rather than clogging the Senate floor for non-relevant questions not about legislation on the floor, etc.

I don't see how questions on the floor about items on the floor could be irrelevant, but I do like the idea of the counsel accessing the preliminary chambers.

That's the opposite of what I said, I think you misread. I was saying in the case of questions that weren't relevant to items on the floor.

Yes, I missed the second "not."

 

[Common-Sense Politics]

It's probably time for the Senate to make its decision, in my opinion. There is nothing new to be learned at this stage about the two candidates, both of which will make fine speakers.

I would note that I think a false narrative has been formed in which the choice is between having a Senate led by Notolecta that is more focused on a law review (which I'm not convinced is in this group's wheelhouse or even that it's necessary) and a Senate led by Aexnidaral which is significantly less focused on this project.

Noto will take the lead on a law review and do his utmost regardless of whether he is speaker or not. Being speaker doesn't have a significant impact on his ability to do so, in my opinion though his argument to the contrary isn't a foolish one. It just may be overstated.

In short, shit or get off the pot.

 

[Fortunado]

We are mostly waiting for the ending deadline as dictated by the Senate Protocol Act. While it may be a little long, stating: "minimum of 48 hours" before any kind of "vote shall commence [...] for their preferred Candidate" (ln 23). For now, I plan to ask questions, as this is the mandated time to do such, even if it seems iffy that we need to question further. It may be good to review that as soon as this is over. The only clause for expediting this process is if we have "unanimous consent" to "immediately appoint a specific Candidate" (ln 26). With two candidates, it is clear we do not have unanimity.

 

[Common-Sense Politics]

Yeah, I may or may not have read the law before. Thanks.

 

[Mousebumples]

I'm curious to see if the need for a revote changes any opinions, or if perhaps the Senate should look at a third candidate for Speaker that has not yet been considered. Any outsiders have opinions?

 

[Kuramia]

I wouldn't say that another option should be made available mostly because at this point some people are tapping their foot and waiting for the Speaker to be confirmed so the Senate can function.

I think, however, that this has been a wonderful dialogue in the Senate that's opened up new questions and proven that we do need a law review, at the least, in order to catch these little things that are tending to draw out something that maybe doesn't need quite this much time devoted to it.