Wait...so "unanimous" meant how many votes on Schiavo?

I keep hearing "unanimous" thinking that this means a large chunk of the senate. But is what RudePundit said correct? There were only 3 actual people present?

I want to believe Dems are going to stay out of this and let the right dig themselves in even deeper with this, but when I heard it was unanimous I thought "there they go again".

Santorum, Frist and Harkin. They voted 2-1 in a very "hurry up and get this over with" fashion suspending the usual rules.

so you are saying three senators voted to pass this on the senate floor. the bill got passed thru by senate with thre votes. this just doesnt sound right

sant and frist voted yes
harkin voted no

is this correct

and then people are saying the dems rolled over

is this right

very wisely, in my opinion. I have yet to talk to anyone that wasn't a loony fundy that thinks this poor woman is "alive" in any meaningful sense. This even includes non-fundy Republicans. Most everyone I talk to is seeing through this as an obvious ploy to kiss fundy ass and distract from the car wreck the country is swiftly turning into.

The usual Senate rules for passing legislation were suspended. Only the three Senators were present - they couldn't even find the chaplain to give a prayer so Santorum did it. They agreed on an unrecorded voice vote without debate. Frist and Santorum for, Harkin against.

I will search for a link with the info...

and Harkin.

the one senate dem there said no

and personally i think the dems shoudl have a face of disgust and not be in this circus. so i am not opposed to senate dems. what they say and posture here on out is open for thought. will wait and see

I'm actually shocked at the contradiction.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-schiavo21mar21,1,3707116.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=3&cset=true

WASHINGTON — Capping a day and night of political, legal and emotional drama, Congress passed and President Bush signed legislation early this morning permitting the parents of a brain-damaged Florida woman to ask a federal judge to order her feeding tube reconnected.

The president, who traveled Sunday from his Texas ranch to the White House for the sole purpose of signing the bill, did so less than an hour after the House voted at 12:45 a.m. EST to pass the legislation, 203 to 58. The Senate passed the bill Sunday afternoon by unanimous consent, with only three senators present.

Thank you,
:tinfoilhat:

and it was unanimous - Harkin is playing ball with the Republicans.

The Senate met with just three senators — Frist, Harkin and Rick Santorum, R-Pa., — on the floor, surrounded by two dozen pages, clerks and parliamentarians. Lawmakers were scattered around the world on trips at the start of the Easter break. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called from Jerusalem at 4 a.m. Eastern time to participate in negotiations. Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., also returned to the Capitol.

The Senate session was a technical matter, to adjourn so that the House could act before today, when a session was scheduled.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/news/ci_2614851

I missed that vote completely. That is far from a quorum, how is that even a legal vote? If it was 2-1, how is that unanimous?

And what about quorum rules?

Can two Repug Senators just vote to suspend the rules and pass laws while Democrats are not present?

Won't a court strike that down immediately?

This is insane.

The voice vote was not recorded, so there's no "evidence" it even occurred - nothing in writing on the Senate's website. I'm having a hard time finding the details in print.

The way this is being reported in the media doean't even begin to explain what really happened.

Of course, maybe that is the way the Dems want it. This is such an odious issue that maybe they just want to stay as far from it as possible. They get hurt worse if they fight it.

a) it is unconstitutional for a vote without quorum.

but - there appears to be a loophole:

b) it is "assumed" that a quorum is present, if noone asks for a quorum vote. And on a division vote (voice yea or nea and stand, as opposed for the yea and nea roll call vote) you are right - it is counted and who wins stated - but who voted how and the actual numbers are not recorded.

But nonetheless, three sounds fishy - that doesn't sound right at all. Has tht been reported elsewhere - beyond RP?

The Senate met with just three senators — Frist, Harkin and Rick Santorum, R-Pa., — on the floor, surrounded by two dozen pages, clerks and parliamentarians. Lawmakers were scattered around the world on trips at the start of the Easter break. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called from Jerusalem at 4 a.m. Eastern time to participate in negotiations. Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., also returned to the Capitol.

The Senate session was a technical matter, to adjourn so that the House could act before today, when a session was scheduled.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/news/ci_2614851

was their some kind of "rules suspension" previously agreed to? This is very counter to the rules on quorum and voting for the senate.

http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/menu.htm

I'm trying to understand how they managed an unrecorded voice vote of 3 based on this information - maybe you can make sense out of it.

for when they run in the Republican Primary for President.

Now we really know our country is screwed....if the News Media is calling it "Unanimous" when its 2 for and 1 against and they are discounting the 97 other Senators....

I feel sick...this is just un-effing-believable....I want my Constitution back.....

so it was indeed unanimous. Wishful thinking on my part perhaps that Harkin had voted no. Sorry for any confusion.

f*ed my whole arguement above, lol lol

A big DUH for me!

"WASHINGTON — With the sparsest of attendance, the Senate unanimously passed on Sunday a bill to try to help brain-damaged patient Terri Schiavo (search) by pushing her case into a federal court for consideration."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150958,00.html

I know, it is Faux but somebody linked to it at Kos.

It is confusing. I bet it was a voice vote.

I suppose they need someone to actually ask for a quorum call to require quorum? There was one Democrat there -- why didn't he ask for a quorum call?

That's fucked. And very dangerous!

Why don't they just designate say 3 and let them pass all the laws? Instead of a full compliment, we should just have the "lawmakers of the week". We could give them a cell phone and they can "voice vote" from where ever they happen to be. Imagine the laws they could pass if they only had to debate anything for 5 minutes a side? No need for committees, just let the "lawmakers of the week" decide it all!

We can NOT sit quietly by this action. We (as a collective group) need to make this known far and wide. That's not government as we know it, nor should it be allowed to stand as a "true reflection of the Senate". This is totally bogus.

Doesn't it seem that more and more their first comment when debating anything is a request to "suspend the rules"? Enough of that shit! Play by the rules or don't play at all! Repubs could pass ANYTHING and say it was legal if we let this stand. They have set a slippery precedent here.

quorum call - A call of the roll to establish whether a quorum is present. If any Senator "suggests the absence of a quorum," the Presiding Officer must direct the roll to be called. Often, a quorum call is terminated by unanimous consent before completion, which permits the Senate to use the quorum call to obtain a brief delay to work out some difficulty or await a Senator's arrival.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/quorum_call.htm

They didn't use it and have proven that they don't need to. They can pass any law they want anytime they want without consideration for the body as a whole. When they use it to "delay" rather than to actually call all members to the floor, it is no longer a vehicle that can be depended upon to level the playing field. These guys didn't feel the need to have their colleagues participate.

There is something really wrong with that. If it only takes three to do this, what else would they try to pass, under the cover of vacation, that couldn't be revisited? When you lay 'recosideration" on the table, it can only be reopened by someone voting in the "winning" side anyway. With only three voting, just which one of them would actually make the motion to reconsider? None of them.

It's just smells of justification of future actions. They need to stop suspending the rules as a general rule so that it means something when they do it, as they did in this case.

And why don't the media report this?