Posted on 02/28/2003 5:57:59 PM PST by TLBSHOW
I think the point here is that the article's title, which is somewhat inflammatory to begin with, doesn't match the content. The poster knew that when he posted the article.
He edited the title, but not in a way that would clarify that the title doesn't match the contents or make it any less inflammatory. Doesn't that make you curious?
Considering the posting history leads some to believe that the article was purposely posted either to deceive, or to bait people.
I'm tending toward thinking that the purpose is to encourage division at FR, but that's just my opinion.
Second, under Senate Rules, a senator may hold the floor for as long as he wants, barring a vote of cloture. Cloture stops debate, but under the rules you need a 60% affirmative vote (note 60%, not necessarily 60 votes if all Senators are not present). Debate may be temporarily stopped with a recess or another privledged motion.
another motion is called a "Quorum Call" (or Call of the House). All Senators are obliged to answer a quorum call by answering in person the roll. The President of the Senate may even send out the Sgt at Arms to enforce attendence. Here is a passage from Roberts ...
"Proceedings in a Call of the House. When the call is ordered the clerk calls the roll of members alphabetically, noting the absentees; he then calls over again the names of absentees, when excuses can be made; after this the doors are locked, no one being permitted to leave, and an order similar in form to the following is adopted: "Ordered, That the sergeant-at-arms take into custody, and bring to the bar of the House, such of its members as are absent without the leave of the House." A warrant signed by the presiding officer and attested by the clerk, with a list of absentees attached, is then given to the sergeant-at-arms, who immediately proceeds to arrest the absentees. When he appears with members under arrest, he proceeds to the chairman's desk (being announced by the doorkeeper in large bodies), followed by the arrested members, and makes his return. The chairman arraigns each member separately, and asks what excuse he has to offer for being absent from the sittings of the assembly without its leave. The member states his excuse, and a motion is made that he be discharged from custody and admitted to his seat either without payment of fees or after paying his fees. Until a member has paid the fees assessed against him he cannot vote or be recognized by the chair for any purpose.
In fact, not attending a quorum call would be very bad for the Dumbocraps, because if the Dumbocraps assembled do not make up more than 60% of the members present, a cloture vote can be immediately moved. In fact, at the quorum call, the doors can be locked to bar tardy members. If successful, the cloture vote would end debate and lead directly to a vote on the confirmation.
Little Dassole wanted this fight, make him pay for it.. Make him and his buddies stand there like jackasses on CSPAN 24/7 in a real, live filibuster mumbling and trying to think of something eloquent to say all day and all night.
[/ Rant Off ]
Now, if you want my honest opinion of what's going on here.. I think it's the GOP overplaying it's hand.
I think they have intentionally not brought out the big guns on this because they are hoping to energize the base and flat out enrage Hispanic voters.. A case of "See, see..! See what the Democrats are doing to us?"
In the beginning, that's exactly what happened. But now it's getting ot the point that instead of angering people at the Democrats only, people are starting to throw barbs at the Republicans as well for being too soft and letting them turn this into an un-constitutional circus.
If they back down on this, Conservatives will be just as mad at the Republicans as they are at the Democrats. Remember Trent Lott? So does everyone else, they don't remember him fondly and the reason they don't is because he wasn't aggressive when that's what the situation warranted.
Estrada has a speech impediment?
What kind?
I'll need to do a little more research in Riddick back at the office. Until then, I stand corrected.
So I'll throw this into the blend: If, at a quorum call, the Republicans can obtain a 2/3rds majority of members present they can amend the rules!
Put me in the 24/7 filibuster category too. The initial Fox story has been bugging me for 2 days now, and unfortunately I haven't been able to spend much time on FR to get the real skinny. So were those quotes (Santurom, etc.) correct, taken out of context, or what? A turnaround in strategy?
Guess I'll get back to my thread-surfing, have another cuppa, and try to get all caught up on this one.
What a visual. I'd like to just slap him, period.
I just now caught your post about Garrett. What's up with this guy? He was a reporter at CNN for years, correct?
A link to the discussion, please? (Still trying to get caught up over here...)
Exactly. It gave you a chance to vent and me a chance to get caught up, didn't it? ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.