Before everyone freaks, understand the term "quorum call"

I've seen it a few times on the site already, and this is prompting me to post this. People seem to be concerned that only 3 Senators passed the Schiavo bill this weekend and they're worried that this could be a regular occurence. This is not so, and here's why:

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

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.

As long as a Dem or anyone who objects is present, they can't just go about their business.

Looked like it had no more than 60% of the total House there last night - meaning a minority of a quorum allowed Mr. DeLay to grandstand on Ms. Schiavo's liquified cortex.

You must be so proud, Mr. DeLay.

Soon enough he'll wish he'd kept his piehole shut and not attracted attention.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Do I have this right--that the only thing that prevents a handful of Senators from passing a bill is a Senator objecting to there being no quorum? That seems so screwy.

in the event that not everyone can make a vote, ie weather emergency. Don't forget, we didn't always have the transportation system we have today.

He could have stopped this undemocratic abridging of our rights in it's tracks.

Why didn't he?

In which case, that makes him a horror of a human being, probably.

This horror of a bill will be described as 'bipartisan'.

All I've heard is Bush running from his vacation to sign this 'bill' and the 'leadership' of DDT DeLay on this. Everyone knows it was the Wingnut Fringe who demanded this, and everyone knows whose fingerprints are on this bill -- NONE of which are Democrats.

As sickening as it truly is to talk about this in such crassly political terms, the fact remains that the Dems decided to not give the Repunks an issue and let them hang themselves with it. Given the revulsion and opposition to this act I've seen in the polls, it was the correct decision.

What WE need to now do is point out how Jerry Falwell and Ralph Reed now have totally taken over Congress -- and if people really don't like it, they have to do something about it.

the house repub leadership was against a "private bill" (limited to this case) and wanted a far reaching bill (eg everyone on life support?). Senate was opposed to that. Tried during the week to "compromise" and I guess the compromise was a "private bill."

Imagine that - with very little substantive debate... DeLay and crew would interfere with family situations across the country - possibly overriding living wills - esp if the federal court judges in a particular area were ideologically against right to die/pull plug. These folks, esp DeLay, search for sellable ways to reach their ideological, radical ends... sellable meaning opportunistic vehicles (in this case Schaivo) to get them quick momentum with little debate - so that the end is determined before the public has a chance to scratch their head.

Thus, I am now reading the senate move (including complicitness of some dems) as a means to stem a much more far reaching outcome.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll090.xml
WTF
we got nuthin?