Only a majority is needed for a quorom, no? Don't the republicans have that?

I could be completely wrong about that though.

Schumer Says Democrats Will Try To Block Barrett Confirmation By Not Giving Republicans Quorum

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats will not “supply quorum” for votes in the Senate as a way to try and block the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett before the election.

During a Sunday night press conference, Schumer slammed Republicans for pushing Barrett’s confirmation forward, saying Senate Democrats will do everything they can to prevent Barrett from being confirmed. Schumer went on to say that one way Democrats are considering blocking the confirmation is by not supplying quorum, meaning Democrats would not show up so work could not be done.

A quorum is the minimum number of members present either in a committee or the entire Senate to hold votes, Fox News reported. The quorum in the Senate is 51 members. There are 22 members on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is in charge of the confirmation process, and nine members are required for a quorum in the committee, including at least two from the minority party, according to Fox News.

“We will talk about when the actual vote occurs in committee and on the floor. Democrats will not supply the quorum,” Schumer said during the press conference. “Period.”

Republicans could create and vote on a new rule to end the quorum in committee, or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell could introduce a discharge resolution that would make it so there would no longer need to be a committee process and the nomination could be brought to a full vote, Fox News reported.

The Judiciary Committee began their confirmation hearing Monday and hope to vote to confirm Barrett before the November elections.

https://dailycaller.com/2020/1...-republicans-quorum/

quote:

Originally posted by HK Ag:
Ms HK AG was telling me that she was hearing that Schumer is signaling that they just wont support a quorum thus dragging the vote out?
What is the parliamentary remedy for this game?

HK Ag

Schumer mentioned this Sunday. This is to get her nomination out of committee (that need at least two democrat for a quorum in committee but just a majority in the full senate). If this happens they need to vote on a discharge petition in the full senate or change the committee rules. Im my opinion there will not be a committee vote so they may as well bring her nomination to the floor. All we are seeing now is political theater for reelection campaigns and twitter wars.

quote:

In my opinion there will not be a committee vote so they may as well bring her nomination to the floor. All we are seeing now is political theater...

Chuck U. Schumer can delay, but he doesn't have enough votes to ultimately keep Mitch McConnell from bringing the nomination to a full vote of the Senate.
I agree with you. Mitch McConnell should just end the committee hearings. He should say if there is not going to be a vote in committee, there's no reason to hold committee hearings.

Maybe Graham could channel his inner 'Glengarry Glen Ross' and declare "Hearings are for voters!"

In other words, maybe extract an on-camera promise from everyone to vote before allowing their questioning? If someone's already decided not to vote, what practical point would there be to spending time on their questioning?

[Link, in case anyone misses the reference: "Coffee is for Closers!" ]

Dick is being a total Dick. Not surprising, quoting lies and interrupting her.

Graham: " Do you own a gun?"

Barrett: "We do own a gun."

quote:

Originally posted by HK Ag:
Ms HK AG was telling me that she was hearing that Schumer is signaling that they just wont support a quorum thus dragging the vote out?
What is the parliamentary remedy for this game?

HK Ag

If that were a viable option, why wouldn't they have played the same game with Kavanaugh and simply spun out the hearings forever? After that mess, I think it's fairly safe to say that we won't see anything we haven't seen before.

I think the best thing to do would be when the meetings convene tomorrow and they have a quorum, simply call for the vote

even if the rats pack up and leave, the meeting has started and a quorum was present

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...one-gesture-n2577978

Sen. John Cornyn:

"Most of us have multiple notebooks and books and things like that in front of us. Can you hold up what you’ve been referring to in answering our questions?"

Barrett held up the only notepad she had.

"Is there anything on it?" Cornyn asked.

"The letterhead that says United States Senate," Barrett replied.

In other words, Barrett had been answering tough questions for hours, and with many hours to go, about potential rulings, Supreme Court precedents, and her past rulings and opinions all without needing extra help.

She’s great. She may be the next Thomas.

Times like this I miss JAllen.

The quorum issue could come up because of Covid and quarantines. The dems are hoping to delay as long as possible in the hopes that more Senators get Covid and need to be quarantined. They are hoping to delay floor vote until last week of October. Here's more details for those interested in arcane Senate rules and manuevers:

https://threadreaderapp.com/th...710642058399746.html

1) The presence of a “quroum” is usually not an issue for Senate committees or the Senate itself to conduct business.
2) But issues of whether or not the Judiciary Committee has the presence of more than half of its members to constitute a quorum could impact how quickly the Senate can move the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court.
3) Moreover, the physical presence of senators is required on the Senate floor itself to vote. Senators cannot vote remotely unlike the House of Representatives. The House set up a remote voting regimen to cope with the pandemic in the spring.
4) There are 22 members of the Judiciary Committee. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) declared over the weekend that Democrats “will not supply the quorum. Period.”
5) In other words, Republicans will have to provide more than half of the members to do business at a “markup” session on Barrett’s nomination. A “markup” is where the committee sends the nomination itself to the floor.
6) The first “markup” will likely happen later in the day on Thursday, October 15. Democrats already plan to invoke committee rules which allow them to delay the markup for a week. But, there could be issues if there aren’t enough senators on present on October 15th.
7) That could delay the process further. This could be an issue if there are additional coronavirus cases or senators must quarantine.
The real need for a quorum is likely to materialize on Thursday, October 22.
8) That’s the day that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has long said he intends to conduct a vote on the nominee in committee.
9) Committee rules require a quorum of the 22 members of the committee be present to conduct a markup session for the nominee.
10) Let’s say hypothetically there issues with attendance are on the GOP side of the aisle due to health/quarantine. Democrats could potentially help Republicans constitute a quorum to do business. But Schumer says Democrats won’t do that.
11) It’s simple. No quorum. No markup. The Barrett nomination is stuck in committee. Senators can vote by proxy in committee. But a proxy vote cannot be a determinative vote. Otherwise, a nomination remains bottled up in committee.
12) The practice of sending Supreme Court nominees to the floor with less-than-stellar Judiciary Committee recommendations is not without precedent.
In 1991, the Judiciary Committee sent the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to the floor with “no recommendation
13) That vote was 13-1. The committee settled to “no recommendation” after it deadlocked 7-7 to give Thomas a “favorable” recommendation. In 1987, the Judiciary Committee rejected a “favorable” recommendation for Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork 9-5.
14) The committee then voted 9-5 to send Bork’s nomination to the floor with an “unfavorable” recommendation. The full Senate then rejected Bork 58-42. Bork became only the 11th High Court nominee defeated on the floor.
15) Regardless, if things go smoothly in committee, we would expect Barrett’s nomination to be on the Senate floor the week of October 25 with a vote toward the end of the week. But if the nomination hits a problem in committee, who knows?
16) If the nomination is on the floor, it’s likely Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) will immediately file cloture to bring an end to debate later that week.
17) Under the provisions of “Nuclear Option II” (which lowered the bar to end debate for Supreme Court nominations from 60 to 51), we would expect the Senate to vote confirm Barrett around the end of October.
18) Now let’s consider a scenario where the Barrett nomination is on the floor – but there is another problem with health and quarantines. Senators CANNOT VOTE REMOTELY ON THE FLOOR FOR ANY REASON. They must be there in person to vote.
19) Don’t forget that McConnell chided the House earlier this summer for implementing a remote voting plan. However, McConnell even expressed concerns of late about how lax White House protocols were combatting coronavirus.
20) If senators can’t show up, Republicans could have trouble confirming Barrett. Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME) have both expressed concern about a rapid confirmation of Barrett. It appears there are only 51 GOP yeas to confirm Barrett.
21) If Republican senators are absent for any reason, that could pose a problem for confirming Barrett.

You noticed how Dick Durbin was blaming Indiana for all the Chicago Gang crime?

ACB was cool, calm and collected.

Bwahahaha!

Hey, if the Dems want a chance at another fat stimulus bill, the Dem Senators will have to be on the Senate floor to make that happen. I'm all for a bait'n'switch.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
You noticed how Dick Durbin was blaming Indiana for all the Chicago Gang crime?

ACB was cool, calm and collected.

If being convicted of ANY felony is so serious that felons lose their right to own the means of defending their families, homes, and lives, then why don't convicted felons also permanently lose their right to vote? As a block, I think a good argument can be made that felons are even more dangerous for what they can do at the ballot box than what they keep in their closet at home.

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
If being convicted of ANY felony is so serious that felons lose their right to own the means of defending their families, homes, and lives, then why don't convicted felons also permanently lose their right to vote? As a block, I think a good argument can be made that felons are even more dangerous for what they can do at the ballot box than what they keep in their closet at home.

Because while every democrat is not a felon, every felon is a democrat!

Could quarantined Senators attend by wearing full Hazmat suits?

flashguy

Ted Cruz is excellent right now. He's simply giving a speech without asking many questions, but nevertheless...

He's hammering home just which side actually values freedom and which chooses justices who will actually defend those freedoms.

yep, Ted is destroying Mr Whitehouse.