Another vote to refer to Judiciary committee

underpants

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 04:25 PM
Original message

Another vote to refer to Judiciary committee

5 minute vote

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

rateyes

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 04:27 PM
Response to Original message

1. If it passes,

the ball is in Conyers Court, and there WILL be a FULL COURT PRESS on his ass to get the investigation going.

If it fails, the resolution is debated on the house floor.

I prefer the first...I'll take the second.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Blaze Diem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #1

4. Thanks..that explains why the Repukes are all voting NO right now.

I'll take either, also. But want Conyers to have it.
Indeed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Blaze Diem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 04:29 PM
Response to Original message

2. Think Rush would send some of that oxy over to Du??

I am confounded by this.
Not sure which tinfoil hat to wear right now.
Cripes, this is some wild stuff today.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MrCoffee

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 04:30 PM
Response to Original message

3. DK can stop this vote! omg, i'm freaking out

this is a vote on the previous question, which is OUT OF ORDER on a Rule IX question of the privilege of the House.

DK needs to call a point of order NOW!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Blaze Diem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #3

5. Wish I knew more about what you are talking about...

Where's DK? Can he still stop it? and what's out of order, if you can nutshell it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

rateyes

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #3

6. Actually, he raised the previous question on the motion to refer..

not on Dennis' resolution. Had the motion to refer failed, he could not have moved the previous question on Dennis' resolution.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MrCoffee

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #6

7. i'm still thinking that the motion to refer was out of order as well...but

that's going to require some more research. thank you for clarifying, i don't have CSPAN right now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

rateyes

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #7

8. I don't think it is...

I'm a former member of the American Institute of Parliamentarians, and unless there is a special house rule prohibiting the motion to refer, then it is in order.

Let me know what your research shows, though. There might be such a rule.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sun May 12th 2024, 09:52 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.