Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Civics/Procedural Experts -- why is this going to committee a good thing?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Yael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 04:25 PM
Original message
Civics/Procedural Experts -- why is this going to committee a good thing?
Randi Rhodes just had an orgasm when the gavel fell.

What happens next from a procedural perspective and what is the timing?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. Oh yes, it is very good. Ahhhhhhhhhh. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. Do you REALLY think Randi understands this process? She's wrong a lot--
I wouldn't look to her to understand what's happening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I am not looking to her -- I am asking you all. WHY is this a good thing?
WHY is committee a good thing?

What do we hope to see accomplished by Conyers et al and in what timing?

What happens next?

Thanks in advance...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
3. Well, John Conyers DOES Chair the Judiciary Committee, but it isn't headed there YET.
They are voting on that now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. I wish I had c-span here. Streaming is so small I can't follow it.
I thought they said the vote was gavelled and it was off to committee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. I don't think it is
When it was introduced originally it was referred to the Judiciary where it has sat dead for several months.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. And HR 676 can't seem to get out of it's committee either.
Why I am wondering about the exhuberance here, but then again, I am not up on procedurals so am likely missing something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
7. IT LIVES!!!!!!!!!
Now I know what I need to do this afternoon, national strike or not

Write a long letter to the judiciary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrCoffee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
8. it's the death of the resolution
it's been in committee since June. it will die there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. It is time for all of us to send them
a long letter and call them

They tried to kill it, and it didn't work

It is still alive
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Help me understand then -- so why the privileged motion if it is going right back?
I am surely missing something rather critical here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrCoffee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. they screwed up...House Rule IX gave HR 333 precedence over the vote to send it to Judiciary
but unless you invoke the rule, they can do whatever they want.

there should never have been a vote on the previous question. it was out of order. damn damn damn Steny Hoyer to hell!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Thanks -- that helps with some of the confusion here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. Didn't screw up of course - they know exactly what they were doing.
Don't kid yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. It puts more pressure on the committee
to make some move.


This also puts the impeachment issue on the public radar, watch for more public opinion polls about a Cheney impeachement. Pollsters have avoided the question thus far, but may not be able to after this.


The bull got out of the barn and charged around on the House floor before he was put back in. He may be back in the barn, now, but he'll be bellowing and kicking in the stall.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crickets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Your description is wonderful
It gives me hope on a day when I'm pretty disgusted with our reps. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slowry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
11. Swept under the rug, afaict. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
16. I don't believe it will be swept under the rug in the judiciary.
It certainly helped when it was referred to the judiciary before the Impeachment of Nixon.

The House thinks they are fighting the last Impeachment war.

Look how quickly Newt and company jumped on the Impeach Clinton bandwagon. They thought the American public would react like they did when Nixon was Impeached. But instead the public saw that Clinton's Impeachment was a trumped up charge and ended up kicking out Newt and company.

So now they all think the American public will react like they did during the Impeachment of Clinton and turn against those who called for the Impeachment. But they have miscalculated the American public's sentiment as they did during the last Impeachment war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
17. HEARINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrCoffee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Conyers has had this EXACT RES. since April...have there been hearings?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-06-07 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
18. This is NOT a good thing.
It will die a lonely death and never ever see the light of day. No, this is definitely not a good thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 13th 2024, 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

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.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC