pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @grayruby 20 Nov \ on: Chaos in the Senate Yesterday Politics_And_Law
I think once a party has lost an election and they will no longer have a majority in a couple months they should not be permitted to ram stuff through during the last two months.
With some contingencies for emergencies. If there is a war or natural disaster for example.
write
preview
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Cje95 OP 20 Nov
Yeah Republicans fumbled the ball and let some judges get through that caused an outcry on X because so many Republicans were gone.
reply
40 sats \ 3 replies \ @SimpleStacker 20 Nov
So, wait, do Republicans want to be present or absent? Politics is complicated.
reply
20 sats \ 2 replies \ @Enemy_of_the_state 20 Nov
I think it’s a rubber stamp unless they have don’t have a quorum (not an expert, just spitballing here…)
reply
57 sats \ 1 reply \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 20 Nov
I think they need to have a quorum. Therefore if they are not there, there can be no votes. One party can try as hard as they want to drive things through, but they need a quorum. Therefore quorum calls and Sargent-at-arms. They need to have at least 51 senators present for a quorum. I don’t think they are allowed to vote without the quorum. So, no rubber stamping without a quorum.
reply
40 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 OP 20 Nov
There were a couple of hearings going on which I think is what caused issues with a quorum because there often were not 51 Members in the chamber which allowed Republicans to question voting.
reply