Image default
State House

South Carolina GOP, Democratic Leaders Seek To Limit Debate In 2024

Proposed House rules change would neuter the Freedom Caucus …

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
Republican and Democratic leaders in the South Carolina House of Representatives are pushing a rules
You must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.

Related posts

State House

SEC Probing South Carolina’s Finances

Will Folks
State House

South Carolina Supreme Court Vacancy: Candidate List Released

Will Folks
State House

South Carolina’s $1.8 Billion Surplus: More Misdirection

Will Folks

11 comments

1ca30da7858677e3260e38d582f97004?s=100&d=mm&r=r
Good January 9, 2024 at 2:54 pm

After watching the assholes of the Freedumb KKKaucus at the federal level completely shit the bed and become unable to do the simplest of duties, its good to see bipartisan support to do something about those incompetent extremists and their idiotic stunts.

Reply
?s=100&d=mm&r=r
Anonymous January 9, 2024 at 4:26 pm

A commie?

Reply
d82364c88d3f2dffef34ce785302dd8c?s=100&d=mm&r=r
Michael Covert Top fan January 10, 2024 at 1:00 pm

You think this is GOOD? Are you THAT tone deaf? They are limiting amendments to 6 from each side, plus 1 each from the perspective House Leaders. You think THAT is good representation? This is a typical Nancy Pelosi type leadership move in the poorest, poorest of fashions. It has been said, “The Legislative process should be slow and deliberate, not fast and furious”. That is appropriate for this situation. furthermore, both sides ALREADY have cloture rule and if they knew and realized how to use it appropriately, that can and would work quite nicely. Its almost as if our forefathers KNEW how screwed up our legislative body could be at times. The bottom line is this— leaving the amendments to those that Hiott and Rutherford choose, is NOT REMOTELY akin to a representative republic or the democratic process. Period.

Reply
3c9c34c6176253603e62f518747a0a73?s=100&d=mm&r=r
Tina January 11, 2024 at 8:50 am

Exactly! Well said

Reply
ee09209161f5c224599837408422dfe3?s=100&d=mm&r=r
RC January 9, 2024 at 4:14 pm

“not only would conservative lawmakers be unable to slow the progress of bills they oppose”

Why should they be able to do that? A bill is brought to the floor, you debate it, and if you don’t like it, vote against it. The so called “Freedom” caucus isn’t interested in legislating.

Reply
63868d8f764daeea578bb4e18e1876c5?s=100&d=mm&r=r
KH January 9, 2024 at 5:02 pm

I can’t believe the stupid, idiotic, asinine comments left by “Good” and “RC”. We need more legislatures like the Freedom Caucus members who will bring bad legislation to the for front so people know what the SC legislature is up to. It’s called checks and balances. You know, what our forefathers envisioned when they created our Constitution. The proposed bill would only give a certain few the ability to bring bills to a vote. All proposed bills should be debated so the representatives from each district can vote and represent their constituents. With this proposed bill, my representative cannot represent my interest or propose a bill that I have requested. The Republican and Democrat leadership is just trying to keep the people of SC from knowing what little they do for our state.

Reply
01871af86207b3f22e1405d522ea55cf?s=100&d=mm&r=r
CongareeCatfish Top fan January 10, 2024 at 9:22 am

Does anyone really think that if Democrats held the numerical supermajority that the GOP has in the Legislature that they would be granting the GOP an equal number of amendments? Not a chance. This is the kind of milquetoast limp-wristed cowardice that the conservative majority of SC voters despise. The Democrats play hardball – you kinda have to respect them for it- but over and over again the national and state GOP keep bringing a nerf bat to a gunfight. As for the proposed rule change, having a party leader decide which amendments can be brought effectively denies large swaths of voters the full representation of their elected officials – it serves no purpose other than to consolidate power and shut down otherwise long-practiced parliamentary rules that have existed in this country for oh about 250 years.

Reply
5fc2d3efa77311ff95ae50e591ef4bcb?s=100&d=mm&r=r
Rob January 11, 2024 at 9:19 pm

That’s unknowable.

But it doesn’t matter here. This is much ado about nothing. Every bill coming to the floor is a GOP supported bill. The majority leader can select 10 amendments that are supported by enough members to pass.

The Democrat amendments will most likely all fail. I wish they would pass.

Reply
ee09209161f5c224599837408422dfe3?s=100&d=mm&r=r
RC January 10, 2024 at 11:28 am

“It’s called checks and balances. You know, what our forefathers envisioned when they created our Constitution.”

“Checks and balances” refers to the three branches of government. Zero surprise a supporter of the “freedom” caucus likes to tout the founding fathers but actually has no clue.

“The proposed bill would only give a certain few the ability to bring bills to a vote”

According to the article, it limits amendments, not bills. And the article doesn’t even hide that the purpose of these amendments is only to slow bills down. It has nothing to do with legitimate debate. The “freedom” caucus just wants to bog down bills that they know they don’t have enough “no” votes for.

Reply
3c9c34c6176253603e62f518747a0a73?s=100&d=mm&r=r
Tina January 11, 2024 at 8:51 am

Lord, help us all!

Reply
?s=100&d=mm&r=r
Rob January 11, 2024 at 9:17 pm

The article is very misleading- intentionally so.

I’m not saying I support it – but “Conservatives” would still be heard. It allows the majority leader to select 10 amendments.

Almost all the bills coming to the floor will be GOP supported bills. They aren’t Democrat bills. I wish they were.

Reply

Leave a Comment

 
0
No content remaining