|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
Yael (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? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
fasttense (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 (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-- |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Yael (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? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
in_cog_ni_to (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. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Yael (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. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tritsofme (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-06-07 04:30 PM Response to Original message |
5. I don't think it is |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Yael (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. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
nadinbrzezinski (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-06-07 04:30 PM Response to Original message |
7. IT LIVES!!!!!!!!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MrCoffee (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 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
nadinbrzezinski (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 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Yael (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? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MrCoffee (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 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Yael (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 (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. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OzarkDem (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 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Yael (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-06-07 05:26 PM Response to Reply #15 |
19. Thanks! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
crickets (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-06-07 05:33 PM Response to Reply #15 |
21. Your description is wonderful |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
slowry (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 (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. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kestrel91316 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-06-07 04:49 PM Response to Original message |
17. HEARINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MrCoffee (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 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-06-07 04:52 PM Response to Original message |
18. This is NOT a good thing. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | 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) |
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